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 .
Detailed Action
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, & 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukura et al (PGPub 2019/0004299) (Kukura) in view of Kuznetsova et al (Yuliya Kuznetsova, Alexander Neumann, and Steven R. J. Brueck, "Imaging interferometric microscopy," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 25, 811-822 (2008)) (Kuznetsova).
Regarding Claims 1 & 8, Kukura discloses a method of increasing the signal contrast in interferometric scattering optical microscopy (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
providing a particle detection region (3) having a boundary defined by an interface (2, Paragraph 40);
illuminating a particle in the particle detection region with coherent light using an objective lens such that the light is reflected from the interface and scattered by the particle (Paragraphs 48 & 49);
capturing the reflected light and the scattered light using the objective lens (11) (Paragraph 48); and
providing selectively attenuating the captured reflected light using a spatial filter (20, Paragraphs 54 & 60); and
providing the selectively attenuated captured reflected light and the captured scattered light to an imaging device (5) to image interference between the reflected light and the scattered light (Paragraph 49);
wherein the objective lens has an optical axis (inherent).
Kukura fails to explicitly disclose providing the coherent light to the objective lens offset from the optical axis of the objective lens such that the coherent light illuminating the particle is at an oblique angle to the interface;
However, Kuznetsova discloses a dark field configuration for Microscopy, comprising:
comprising providing the coherent light to the objective lens offset from the optical axis of the objective lens such that the coherent light illuminating the particle is at an oblique angle to the interface (Fig. 1, Section 2 EXTENSION OF FREQUENCY SPACE COVERAGE TO (1+NA)/λ, 1st Paragraph & description of image);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kukura with providing the coherent light to the objective lens offset from the optical axis of the objective lens such that the coherent light illuminating the particle is at an oblique angle to the interface because this improves the resolution of images produced by the system.
Regarding Claim 4, Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kuznetsova discloses adjusting the oblique angle to maximize a signal-to-noise ratio of the interference between the reflected light and the scattered light (Section 5B. Specifics of image Reconstruction, Paragraphs 1-4).
The reasons for combination are the same as above.
Regarding Claims 7 & 15, Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kukura teaches processing the imaged interference to determine a difference between the imaged interference at two different times (Paragraph 111). Measuring multiple objects over time to monitor a change in mass would meet this limitation;
Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova fails to explicitly disclose Fourier transforming the difference to characterize the particle or a solution of the particle;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova with Fourier transforming the difference to characterize the particle or a solution of the particle because Fourier transforming data is a very common technique in optical measurements and allows advantages such as being able to resolve the changes in intensity at each individual wavelength in the light which can provide greater information about a sample.
Regarding Claims 12, 13, 18, & 19, Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the spatial filter is an off-axis spatial filter at or adjacent a Fourier plane of the objective lens, and is configured to selectively mask a region of the Fourier plane offset from the optical axis in an opposite direction to the offset from the optical axis of the optical path of the coherent light to the objective lens; and wherein the spatial filter mask is located at or adjacent a back focal plane of the objective lens or at a focal plane of the coherent light, and is configured to mask a region located at the focus of a reflection of the coherent light from the interface;
However, given the combination of Kukura with Kuznetsova the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova with wherein the spatial filter is an off-axis spatial filter at or adjacent a Fourier plane of the objective lens, and is configured to selectively mask a region of the Fourier plane offset from the optical axis in an opposite direction to the offset from the optical axis of the optical path of the coherent light to the objective lens; and wherein the spatial filter mask is located at or adjacent a back focal plane of the objective lens or at a focal plane of the coherent light, and is configured to mask a region located at the focus of a reflection of the coherent light from the interface because one would place the filter in the optics train where it most appropriately can perform its function of attenuating the light reflected from the interface and in combination with Kuznetsova’s disclosure of off-axis illumination placing the filter off-axis at the Fourier plane or at a focal plane of the coherent light would be common sense.
Regarding Claims 16 & 20, Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova discloses the aforementioned;
The embodiment of Fig. 1 of Kukura fails to explicitly disclose that the rear surface of the objective lens is curved;
However, Kukura of embodiment shown in Fig. 6 teaches wherein a rear surface of the objective lens (11) is curved (Fig. 6);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova with the rear surface of the objective lens is curved because the shape of lenses depends on many factors for shaping and controlling beams of light and it would be obvious to try any shapes that would serve the purposes of the device to produce an accurate measurement.
Regarding Claim 17, Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kukura discloses wherein the particle detection region comprises a chamber or channel (Paragraphs 122 & 118).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukura in view of Kuznetsova and further in view of Davidson et al (Davidson, M.W. and Abramowitz, M. (2002). Optical Microscopy. In Encyclopedia of Imaging Science and Technology, J.P. Hornak (Ed.). https://doi.org/10.1002/0471443395.img074) (Davidson).
Regarding Claims 2 & 9, Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose linearly polarizing the coherent light illuminating the particle such that the coherent light illuminating the particle is partially or completely p-polarized with respect to a plane of incidence of the coherent light on the interface; and wherein the source of coherent light is linearly polarized such that the coherent light illuminating the particle is partially or completely p-polarized with respect to a plane of incidence of the coherent light on the interface;
However, Davidson teaches linearly polarizing the coherent light illuminating the particle such that the coherent light illuminating the particle is partially or completely p-polarized with respect to a plane of incidence of the coherent light on the interface (Section 7 Polarized light, Paragraphs 5 & 6, Fig. 20);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova with linearly polarizing the coherent light illuminating the particle such that the coherent light illuminating the particle is partially or completely p-polarized with respect to a plane of incidence of the coherent light on the interface; and wherein the source of coherent light is linearly polarized such that the coherent light illuminating the particle is partially or completely p-polarized with respect to a plane of incidence of the coherent light on the interface because this allows for the examination of birefringent samples.
Regarding Claim 3, Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova and Davidson discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the oblique angle defines substantially Brewster's angle for the coherent light at the interface;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova with wherein the oblique angle defines substantially Brewster's angle for the coherent light at the interface because this is a well-known angle of incidence to ensure full transmission of polarized light through a surface which improves the signal to noise ratio of the eventually detected interference pattern.
Regarding Claim 14, Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the coherent light is polarized, and an analyzer with an orthogonal polarization is provided in an optical path between the particle and the imaging device;
However, Davidson discloses wherein the coherent light is polarized, and an analyzer with an orthogonal polarization is provided in an optical path between the particle and the imaging device (Section 7 Polarized light, Paragraphs 5 & 6, Fig. 20);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova with wherein the coherent light is polarized, and an analyzer with an orthogonal polarization is provided in an optical path between the particle and the imaging device because this allows for the examination of birefringent samples.
Claim(s) 5 & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukura in view of Kuznetsova and further in view of Sandoghdar et al (PGPub 2018/0275097) (Sandoghdar).
Regarding Claim 5, Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kukura discloses putting the particle in a solution and using a chamber or channel (Paragraphs 118 & 122) but fails to explicitly disclose a chamber or channel with a pair of opposite boundaries configured to restrict motion of the particle in a direction along the optical axis to a distance less than 3/2λ, λ, or λ /2 where λ is the wavelength of the coherent light;
However, Sandoghdar teaches a chamber or channel with a pair of opposite boundaries configured to restrict motion of the particle in a direction along the optical axis to a distance less than 3/2λ, λ, or λ /2 where λ is the wavelength of the coherent light (Paragraph 45). It is explained that the particles are confined within a channel with a depth of between 100nm to 500nm where the depth of focus is limited to less that one wavelength (300nm) thus this disclosure meets the scope of the limitation;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova with a chamber or channel with a pair of opposite boundaries configured to restrict motion of the particle in a direction along the optical axis to a distance less than 3/2λ, λ, or λ /2 where λ is the wavelength of the coherent light because this allows for single particle sensitivity.
Regarding Claim 5, Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kukura discloses wherein the particle comprises a biological molecule in a buffer solution (Paragraph 118) but fails to explicitly disclose the buffer solution is an aqueous solution;
However, Sandoghdar discloses that a sample can be a protein in an aqueous solution (Paragraph 32);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova with the buffer solution is an aqueous solution because commonly buffer solutions are aqueous solutions and it would be chosen based upon cost and availability.
Claim(s) 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukura in view of Kuznetsova and further in view of Doric et al (PGPub 2017/0363849) (Doric).
Regarding Claim 10, Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the coherent light illuminating the particle at an oblique angle comprises a collimated beam of coherent light, and wherein the coherent light provided to the objective lens is focused at a back focal plane of the objective lens;
However, Doric discloses wherein the coherent light illuminating the particle at a collimated beam of coherent light, and wherein the coherent light provided to the objective lens is focused at a back focal plane of the objective lens (Paragraph 27, Fig. 1);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova with illuminating the particle at a collimated beam of coherent light, and wherein the coherent light provided to the objective lens is focused at a back focal plane of the objective lens because illumination a sample with collimated light provides and even field of illumination over a sample which improves overall image by ensuring that all intensity changes are due to the change in phase and not an unevenness of illumination.
Regarding Claim 10, Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova and Doric discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein an angle of incidence of the coherent light at the interface is between i) an angle value at which, at the imaging device, an intensity of the reflected light is greater than an intensity of light reflected from a back surface of the objective lens, and ii) the angle value plus 10 degrees;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kukura as modified by Kuznetsova and Doric with wherein an angle of incidence of the coherent light at the interface is between i) an angle value at which, at the imaging device, an intensity of the reflected light is greater than an intensity of light reflected from a back surface of the objective lens, and ii) the angle value plus 10 degrees because one would want the intensity of the reflected light to exceed the back reflected light from objective lens since that would be a Parasitic reflection that causes noise in the measurement and if the reflected light is less intense than that parasitic reflection it will worsen the signal to noise ratio of the detection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 March 28, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877