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
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/23/2026, has been accepted for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered and considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (2024/0053264 A1, previously cited reference) in view of Tao et al. (2023/0112565 A1, previously cited reference).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 11 and 13, Cheng teaches of a system for label-free, single molecule spectroscopic imaging a mid-infrared photothermal microscopy system images a sample (figs. 1A-1B), the system comprising:
a substrate (104);
a mid-infrared (IR) optical source (108) for generating a mid-IR beam a pulsed IR excitation beam 110, the mid-IR beam being directed at which one of the angles is an oblique angle onto a portion of a sample 102 located on the substrate (104) to induce a temperature change through heating the sample 102 in the portion by absorption of the mid-IR beam a pulsed IR excitation beam 110 [par. 0047];
a probe source a probe light source 112 for generating a probe beam probe bream 114, the probe beam being directed onto the substrate (104) under total internal reflection (a phenomenon that occurs when light travels from an optically denser medium (like glass or water or oil) to a less dense medium (like air) at an angle greater than a specific threshold called the critical angle) intended to generate a laterally-propagating evanescent field [par. 0047]; and a detector (e.g. photodiodes 132a, 132b or camera or detector 142) [pars. 0007, 0050-51, 0053] for detecting orthogonally scattered probe light from the sample 102 [par. 0062].
Cheng teaches of substrate (104) [par. 0047], Cheng fail to explicitly specify a gold-coated substrate.
Tao from the same field of endeavor teaches of detecting single molecules comprising substrate flow cell 120 includes gold-coated glass slide 102 and wherein the gold-coated substrate is glass (claim 3) (a TIR phenomenon occurs when light travels from an optically denser medium (like glass or water or oil) to a less dense medium (like air) at an angle greater than a specific threshold called the critical angle, as can be seen in depicted drawing (figs. 1A-1B, and 3A-3B )) (see abstract) [pars. 0064, 0077].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng substrate with a gold-coated substrate, since Cheng did not limit the substrate to use, as such, in view of Tao, Cheng substrate can be substituted in order to accurately collect light scatted by the surface and by the target molecules on the surface to form a series of images on the camera, and performed analysis based on scattering of an evanescent field near a sensor surface created by surface plasmon resonance (SPR) or total internal reflection (TIF), as per the teaching of Tao (Tao, (see abstract) [pars. 0003, 0011, 0074, 0079]).
For the purposes of clarity, the method claims 11 and 13 is/are taught/suggested by the functions shown/stated/set forth with regards to the system claims 1 and 3 as rejected above as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Tao.
As to claims 2 and 12, Chen when modified by Tao, Cheng teaches of the system further comprising a data acquisition and processing system (i.e. a computer) for acquiring and processing the detected orthogonally scattered probe light from the sample 102 to produce an IR-encoded scattering image based on differences between scattering detected during mid-IR beam a pulsed IR excitation beam 110 excitation of the sample 102 and scattering detected without mid-IR beam excitation of the sample 102).
As to claims 4 and 14, Chen when modified by Tao, Cheng teaches of the system further comprising a filter 146, through which returning light or reflected from probe light path 114 is remove/blocked [par. 0053] is a barrier positioned to block reflected probe beam light.
As to claims 5 and 15, Chen when modified by Tao, Cheng teaches of the system comprising a mid-infrared (IR) optical source (108) for generating a mid-IR beam a pulsed IR excitation beam 110, the mid-IR beam being directed at which one of the angles is an oblique angle onto a portion of a sample 102 located on the gold-coated substrate (104) to induce a temperature change through heating the sample 102 in the portion by absorption of the mid-IR beam a pulsed IR excitation beam 110 [par. 0047], and teaches that the beam(s) is/are scan into a certain angle into a spatial position on the sample [par. 0056].
Cheng fails to specify the exact angle of directing the IR has been wherein the mid-IR beam is directed onto the portion of the sample at a 45degree angle of incidence. However, even though, Cheng fail to teaches the exact angle, the constructional/structural change difference(s) in the system of claim 1 is considered obvious variation of angle, since Cheng teaches of scanning at not limited angle(s) into a spatial position on the sample. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 5 and 15 in order to accurately focus the IR onto the desired portion of the sample for scanning.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims in order to accurately focus the IR onto the desired portion of the sample for scanning, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
As to claims 6 and 16, Chen when modified by Tao, Cheng teaches of wherein the mid-IR beam is pulsed a pulsed IR excitation beam 110 [pars. 0009, 0047, 0062].
As to claims 7-8 and 17-18, Chen when modified by Tao, Cheng teaches of the system comprising mid-IR beam is pulsed a pulsed IR excitation beam 110 [pars. 0009, 0047, 0062], as applied to claims 6 and 16.
Cheng fail to teaches the constructional/structural change differences as that claimed by Applicants claims 7-8 and 17-18, such as, wherein the mid-IR beam is pulsed in pulses of about 80 ns; and wherein the probe beam is a nanosecond pulsed 450-nm laser.
However, even though, Cheng fail to teaches the exact the constructional/structural change difference(s) in the system of claim 1 as that claimed by Applicants claims 7-8 and 17-18, the changes is/are considered obvious in view of Cheng teaches of a pulse with a certain pulse [pars. 0009, 0047, 0062].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims in order to a single pulse measurement or perform the single pulse photothermal from each particle that can be clearly resolved by wideband detection system as shown in FIG. 3A, as per teachings of Cheng, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
As to claims 9 and 19, Chen when modified by Tao, Cheng teaches of the system wherein the probe beam and mid-IR beam pulses are synchronized is the mid-infrared beam and the probe light scan the sample synchronously (see abstract) [pars. 0009-10]
As to claims 10 and 20, Chen when modified by Tao, Cheng teaches of wherein the detector comprises a cmos camera [par. 0007].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks, (see pages 5-8), filed on 07/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
a) Applicant argues starting on page 5 paragraph 3 to page 6, paragraph 3, that ……. As discussed in the specification at page 2: quoting the page and/or section of the specification, stating that “……………………………………..,” the applied combination of Cheng and Tao fails to teach or suggest the claimed TIR-evanescent, orthogonal-scatter architecture. Independent claims 1 and 11 require that the probe beam be directed onto the gold-coated substrate "under total internal reflection to generate a laterally-propagating evanescent field" and that orthogonally scattered probe light be detected from the sample. Claims 4 and 14 further require a barrier positioned to block reflected probe beam light. These limitations are not met by the conventional reflected/transmitted probe-light paths identified in Cheng, and Tao does not supply a reason to reconstruct Cheng into the claimed arrangement.
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (a), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because it has been held that during examination See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow."); and further, during examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In response to the page and/or paragraph cited by Applicants argument (a), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that, even though specification is considered, the disclosure section phrase that include(s) “……. can be used to enhance interferometric scattering and an IR-reflective gold-coated substrate with 45° mid-IR incidence can be used to double the interfacial pump field intensity…...”, in the paragraph, considering the BRI consistent with the disclosure “can be used to” only required that a subject has the capability, purpose, or utility to perform a specific action or achieve a result. It is respectfully pointed out to applicant that these arguments is/are not persuasive because the limitations being argue is rejected as being obvious over Chen and Tao, and the Applicant have not provided any proof and/or any factual evidence that the system configuration of Chen and/or Tao is/are not capable providing/creating the “total internal reflection” (a phenomenon that occurs when light travels from an optically denser medium (like glass or water or oil) to a less dense medium (like air) at an angle greater than a specific threshold called the critical angle) within the system configuration, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 1A). As such, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because the rejection is made of 103 not 102, and by looking at Chen system configuration depicted drawing (fig. 1A), one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would reasonably know/recognized that part of the section of Chen system obviously teaches “total internal reflection” (a phenomenon that occurs when light travels from an optically denser medium (like glass or water or oil) to a less dense medium (like air) at an angle greater than a specific threshold called the critical angle) within the system configuration, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 1A) intended to generate……….., Applicant is reminded that the teachings or suggestions of the prior art that have been used as evidence within a rejection of the claimed invention in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, as set forth by the Court, are to be evaluated and determined not just from one or more specifically identified quotes to individual sections of the text of the prior art document but are in fact to be evaluated and determined from all that the prior art document teaches or suggests, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 17 (CCPA, 1977), with some reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 16 (CCPA, 1977). Finally, Applicant is reminded that, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive.
In conclusion, the feature "a barrier positioned to block reflected probe beam light " as recited in dependent claims 4 and 14 only required that there is “a barrier” to block and the barrier is not limited to any specific type of barrier as long as the feature is capable blocking reflected probe beam light. Therefore, the claim has a scope that will include any device that can block probe light such as the system filter taught by Chen. As a result, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument (a) is not persuasive, because one of ordinary skill in the art would know/recognized that the feature "a barrier" as recited in independent claims 4 and 14 is obviously include(s) device such as filter positioned to block reflected probe beam light by Chen [par. 0053], and thus meet these limitations.
b) Applicant argues that staring on page 5 paragraph 6 to page 6, paragraph 3, in particular that cited reference Cheng does not teach of suggest a probe beam under total internal reflection that generates a laterally propagating evanescent field. ………………….., Chen… teaches scanning and focusing the probe beam onto … sample….. ……………………..
Applicant argues that That reflected/transmitted far-field collection arrangement is materially different from the claimed probe beam directed onto a gold-coated substrate under TIR to generate a laterally propagating evanescent field as well as from detection of orthogonally scattered probe light generated by that evanescent- field architecture.
Applicant argues that Cheng also does not teach the claimed barrier. …………………………………….,
Applicant argues that The specification confirms that the claimed terms refer to a different optical architecture than Cheng's reflected/transmitted photodiode system. ………………………………………………………the visible beam is directed onto a gold-coated glass slide under total internal reflection, which "generates a laterally propagating evanescent field," and ……………………………. ……………………………………………... Cheng's cited passages do not teach that configuration.
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (b), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to arguments (a), applicant arguments regarding arguments (b) are not persuasive.
In addition, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that these arguments are not persuasive because it is well settled that the teachings or suggestions of the prior art that have been used as evidence within a rejection of the claimed invention in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, as set forth by the Court, are to be evaluated and determined not just from one or more specifically identified quotes to individual sections of the text of the prior art document but are in fact to be evaluated and determined from all that the prior art document teaches or suggests, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 17 (CCPA, 1977), with some reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 16 (CCPA, 1977). In view of this, then contrary to Applicant’s arguments to the contrary the Examiner’s need not necessarily point to specific sections of the prior art when supporting a rejection of the claimed invention in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
In conclusion, one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and/or at the time the invention was made would have fairly and reasonably recognized that the prior art does properly support a rejection of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 103, as detailed above. Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that it has been held that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the case, the examiner did recognize that the limitation directing beam to a substrate/sample that is "a gold-coated substrate" was not taught by Chen but used Tao to find this limitation. As a result, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen substrate or sample by substitution of Tao substrate which is a gold-coated substrate as Chen substrate, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the substrate to be detected, and since the propose modification of the prior art would not change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng substrate with a gold-coated substrate, since Cheng did not limit the substrate to use, as such, in view of Tao, Cheng substrate can be substituted in order to accurately collect light scatted by the surface and by the target molecules on the surface to form a series of images on the camera, and performed analysis based on scattering of an evanescent field near a sensor surface created by surface plasmon resonance (SPR) or total internal reflection (TIF), as per the teaching of Tao (Tao, (see abstract) [pars. 0003, 0011, 0074, 0079]). As such, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that these arguments are not persuasive.
c) Applicant argues that staring on page 6 paragraph 4 to page 7, paragraph 2, in particular that cited reference
Tao does not cure the deficiency. Tao [0071] describes near-field optical imaging in which the near field is created by SPR or total internal reflection and scattered light from sample molecules and a sensor surface is detected. Tao [0075] describes an
……………………………………….. surface plasmonic waves are excited from the bottom of a gold-coated glass slide and scattering is collected from the top to form a plasmonic scattering microscopy image. Tao [0085] then describes image processing to remove background and obtain high-contrast PSM images. While these teachings may describe a gold-coated SPR/TIR scattering platform, they are not used in a mid-IR photothermal microscope for a TIR-generated laterally propagating evanescent probe field, or orthogonal detection of photothermally modulated scattered probe light, nor do they disclose a barrier that blocks reflected probe light while preserving scatter.
Applicant argues that ………………………………………………… Applicant maintains, the proposed combination requires more than changing substrate material. It requires rebuilding Cheng's reflected/transmitted photodiode-based MIP architecture into Tao's distinct SPR/TIR scattering architecture and, in certain embodiments, further adding the claimed reflected-beam-blocking barrier in the orthogonal scatter path. MPEP § 2143 and In re Kahn require an articulated reason grounded in the applied art, not Applicants' disclosure, for making the specific modification. Applicant believes that the Office Action has not identified such a teaching-driven reason.
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (c), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to arguments (a)-(b), applicant arguments regarding arguments (c) are not persuasive.
In addition, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that by applicant's own account (argument (c) above) Tao is reasonably concern with SPR/TIR scattering platform, as such, since the instant application claims and, cited references are reasonably concerned with enhancement scattering of substrate which the applicant is involved, the cited references are considered as an analogous art. Further, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that the Office agree with Applicant that it know in the art as evidenced by Tao (Tao, [pars. 0028, 0061]) to use a substrate such as claimed “a gold-coated substrate” in order to produces scattered light for sufficient interference with the light scattered by the target molecules in an interference system configuration. It is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive, as the examiner did recognize that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). As such, the claims are still rejected as shown in the detail above. The rejections are proper, and the argument/remarks for request for reconsideration does not appear to place the application in condition for allowance.
In conclusion, one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made would have fairly and reasonably recognized that the prior art does properly support a rejection of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 103 as detailed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights