DETAILED ACTION
In response to the mailing of an incomplete Office Action on 9/16/2026, the following corrective action is taken.
The period for reply of 3 MONTHS set in said Office Action is restarted to begin with the mailing date of this letter.
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 (IDS) submitted on 3/31/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: antecedent basis is lacking for the recitation of the half-wave plate. The Examiner recommends having the claim depend from claim 4, where the structure is first introduced.
In the interest of expediting prosecution, the claim shall be examined upon these merits.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 116698758 A, pagination according to provided translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a luminescence spectroscopy apparatus for time-resolved characterization of a sample emitting circularly polarized light (Fig.3), including:
A pulsed laser excitation source 6 configured to generate a laser pulse for exciting the sample 14;
An achromatic quarter-wave plate 15 arranged to receive therethrough light emitted by the sample 14;
A polarization beam splitter 17 arranged downstream to the quarter-wave plate 15;
An optical spectrometer 20 arranged downstream to the polarization beam splitter 17;
A time-gated ICCD 22 arranged to receive light from the optical spectrometer 20 and having an image intensifier; and
A controller 21 configured to control a pulse generator to apply a gate pulse to the image intensifier for selectively activating the image intensifier, where the controller is connected to the pulsed laser excitation source 6 such that the gate pulse is triggerable by the laser pulse of the pulsed laser excitation source 6 (p.7).
With respect to claim 2, Zhang further discloses that the polarization beam splitter is a birefringent polarization beam splitter (Glan prism, p.7).
With respect to claim 4, Zhang further discloses an achromatic half-wave plate 16 arranged in sequence with the quarter-wave plate 15 (Fig.3).
With respect to claim 11, Zhang further discloses that the quarter-wave plate 15 and the polarization beam splitter 17 define a detection path downstream of the sample 14, where the pulsed laser excitation source 6 is configured to define an excitation path which is parallel to the detection path (Fig.3).
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.
Claims 3, 6, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Acher (US 2025/0347625 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Zhang does not specifically disclose a Wollaston or Rochon prism as the polarization beam splitter.
Acher teaches the practice of simultaneously imaging orthogonal polarizations of fluorescence from a sample (Fig.1), where the orthogonal polarizations are separated by a Wollaston or Rochon prism 18, incident upon a spectrometer (grating 12), and the corresponding spectra imaged upon a CCD along two distinct lines (Fig.4; see at least par.0065). In this manner, the fluorescence analysis time is essentially cut in half by simultaneously imaging orthogonal polarization spectra for a given set of analysis parameters with reduced artifacts due to the simultaneous acquisition (pars.0011-0012 and 0065-0067).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Zhang to include a Wollaston or Rochon prism as the polarization beam splitter in order to double the data acquisition rate with improved accuracy, as taught by Acher.
With respect to claim 6, Zhang does not specifically disclose that the CCD has an image area with a first region of interest configured to receive light with a first polarization component and a second region of interest configured to receive light with a second polarization component.
Acher teaches the practice of doing so (Figs.2-4) for simultaneous spectral imaging of orthogonal polarization states of fluorescence from a sample (Fig.1). In this manner, the fluorescence analysis time is essentially cut in half by simultaneously imaging orthogonal polarization spectra for a given set of analysis parameters and instantly calculate the degree of polarization, all with reduced artifacts due to the simultaneous acquisition (pars.0011-0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Zhang to have the image area include first and second regions of interest configured to receive light with first and second polarization components, respectively, in order to double the data acquisition rate with improved accuracy, as taught by Acher.
With respect to claim 12, Zhang further discloses a method of operation, including:
Providing a luminescence spectroscopy apparatus according to claim 1;
Generating the pulsed laser excitation source 6 a laser pulse for exciting a sample 14;
Receiving by the controller a trigger signal from the pulsed laser excitation source (via cable h – i);
Activating the image intensifier by applying the gate pulse by the pulse generator to the image intensifier (via cable h – i); and
Recording a first polarization component of light emitted by the sample on a first region of interest of an image area of the CCD.
Further with respect to claim 12, Zhang does not specifically disclose recording a second polarization component of light emitted by the sample on a second region of interest of the image area of the CCD simultaneously with the first polarization component.
Acher teaches the practice of simultaneously imaging first and second polarization components of light emitted by a sample excited by a laser (Fig.1) onto respective first and second regions of interest of an image area of a CCD of a spectrometer (Figs.2-4). In this manner, the fluorescence analysis time is essentially cut in half by simultaneously imaging orthogonal polarization spectra for a given set of analysis parameters and instantly calculate the degree of polarization, all with reduced artifacts due to the simultaneous acquisition (pars.0011-0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Zhang to have the image area include first and second regions of interest configured to simultaneously receive light with first and second polarization components, respectively, in order to double the data acquisition rate with improved accuracy, as taught by Acher.
With respect to claim 20, Acher further teaches that steps b)-f) are repeated by incrementally changing a position of a grating of the optical spectrometer after each step f) (par.0048) in order to provide additional spectral analysis flexibility with a single device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Zhang to repeat steps b)-f) after incrementally changing a position of a grating of the optical spectrometer after each step f) in order to be able to more fully characterize the polarization spectrum of the sample with minimal effort, as taught by Acher.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Baguenard (see IDS filed 3/31/2025).
With respect to claim 7, Zhang does not specifically disclose having the quarter wave plate rotatably mounted in a motorized rotary mount, where a first motor controller is configured to control rotation of the quarter-wave plate.
Baguenard teaches the practice of providing a quarter-wave plate in a rotatable, computer-controlled mounting (Fig.1) in order to automatically and precisely acquire the full Stokes vector of a CPL fluorescing sample (Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Zhang to have the quarter wave plate rotatably mounted in a motorized rotary mount, where a first motor controller is configured to control rotation of the quarter wave plate in order to provide automated and precision polarization characterization of the CPL sample, as taught by Baguenard.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Acher, as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Baguenard (Nature Communications 2023, see IDS filed 3/31/2025).
With respect to claim 13, neither Zhang nor Acher teach the practice of repeating the measurements b)-f) for a second angle of the fast axis of the quarter wave plate being 90o from the first angle of the fast axis of the quarter wave plate when the steps b)-f) were performed the first time. Zhang, having the benefits of the teachings of Acher, teaches simultaneous orthogonal polarization spectral measurement on a common CCD, as noted in the above rejections.
Baguenard teaches the practice of fully characterizing the Stokes vector of a CPL fluorescing sample, where orthogonal polarization spectra are acquired simultaneously on a common CCD using a polarizing beam splitter (Fig.1). A quarter-wave plate rotatably mounted in a computer-controlled mount downstream of the sample has the fast axis positioned at π/4 from the axes of the polarizing beam splitter for the first simultaneous measurement of the first and second polarization-encoded channels, and then the quarter-wave plate is rotated to -π/4 and both channels are measured again. See p.2, col.2, “Results and discussion”:
“The measurement first involves setting the orientation of the QWP fast axis to +45 to place the RHCP channel on the top track of the CCD and the LHCP on the bottom track. These first two polarization-encoded spectra are recorded. In the second step, the fast axis of the QWP is set to -45 to invert the polarization channels and the two polarization-encoded channels are recorded again.”
In this manner, the full Stokes vector is able to be taken into account while simultaneously minimizing or cancelling most of the measurement artifacts resulting in the various error sources, from anisotropy of the PBS to the propagation differences in the two arms (p.3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the prior art combination of Zhang and Acher to repeat the measurements b)-e) with a 90 degree rotation of the quarter wave plate and record the first polarization component of light emitted by the sample on the second region of interest of the CCD and record the second polarization component of light on the first region of interest, as taught by Baguenard, in order to minimize measurement artifacts by taking advantage of the dual-arm arrangement and repeating the simultaneous measurements with the light polarizations swapped between the arms.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 9, although Zhang illustrates parallel illumination, it is notoriously well-known in the field of fluorescence spectrometry to orient the excitation axis perpendicular to the detection axis in order to effectively eliminate the risk of the excitation beam from entering the detection optics and causing a large peak at the excitation wavelength relative to the fluorescence peak(s) and/or saturating the detector such that precision measurement of the fluorescence is poor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Zhang to orient the excitation axis perpendicular to the detection axis as a routine means of improving the signal to noise ratio by preventing the excitation beam from entering the detection optics, as known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 10 and 14-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 5, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation of having the quarter-wave plate arranged downstream to the half-wave plate, as required by the combination of features as claimed. When measuring circular-polarized fluorescence, it doesn’t make sense to have the half-wave plate first in the optical path, absent the benefits of Applicant’s disclosure.
With respect to claim 8 (presumably dependent upon claim 4), the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation of having the half-wave plate mounted on a rotatable mount and controlled by a second motor controller, as required by the combination of features as claimed. At best, the prior art teaches rotating the quarter wave plate for full characterization of the polarization spectra. There is no reason to rotate the half-wave plate absent the benefit of Applicant’s disclosure.
With respect to claim 10, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation of having the excitation laser pulse having a horizontal polarization when the excitation and detection paths are arranged orthogonal to one another, as required by the combination of features as claimed.
With respect to claim 14, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the need for beam steering on the pulsed laser excitation source until the light is collected by the same pixels of the CCD as before rotation of the quarter wave plate, as required by the combination as claimed. Baguenard teaches an arrangement where the reverse polarizations are likely to be incident in the same places. No teaching or discussion of optical alignment is disclosed for different rotations of the QWP.
With respect to claim 15, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation of repeating the measurement steps for a third rotation of the quarter-wave plate where the fast axis is arranged 90 from the second rotation, as required by the combination of features as claimed. Baguenard teaches two orthogonal positions for sufficient data capture.
Claim 16 is objected to by virtue of its dependence upon claim 15, thus incorporating the combination of allowable features.
With respect to claim 17, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation of repeating the measurement steps at different rotations of the half-wave plate, as required by the combination of features as claimed. Similar to claim 8, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests taking measurements at different rotations of the half-wave plate when a quarter-wave plate is present in the optical path for measuring circularly-polarized fluorescence.
Claim 18 is objected to by virtue of its dependence upon claim 15, thus incorporating the combination of allowable features.
With respect to claim 19, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation of performing vertical pixel binning in step f) such that only a first track of the first polarization component and a second track of the second polarization component is output from the CCD, as required by the combination of features as claimed. The prior art generally records the pixels central to the track and throws out stray pixel input below a threshold.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zhang (CN 216284937 U) teaches a measurement relationship analogous to that of Baguenard.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached on 571.272.2273. 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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights