DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the amendments filed on 4 NOVEMBER 2025.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 18 has been amended. Claims 24-32 have been added. Claims 11, 13, 14, and 16-32 are pending and herein examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4 NOVEMBER 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously presented prior-arts and U.S. Publication No. 2017/0068080 A1 (hereinafter “Anhut”).
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 31, “an EDOF region” should read --an extended depth of field (EDOF) region--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 18-20, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,005,314 B2 (hereinafter “Ortyn”) and U.S. Publication No. 2017/0068080 A1 (hereinafter “Anhut”).
Regarding claim 18, Ortyn discloses an apparatus for detecting fluorescence signals and/or induced light signals emitted from a three-dimensional region of a sample (Col. 5, ll. 33-37, “a detector configured to detect the image and generate image data, and a processor configured to process the image data […] to produce an extended depth of field image of an object.” FIG. 1 depicts a three-dimensional region with imaging samples. FIG. 6 depicts a 3-D contour of a sample), the apparatus comprising:
a (FIG. 2, light sources 62, 64, 66, 72, and 74);
a detection beam path (FIGS. 1A, 1B, and 2 depict optical paths) configured for guiding detection radiation corresponding to the signals emitted from a portion of the sample illuminated by the light sheet for capture (FIGS. 1A, 1B, and 2 each disclose detectors for capturing images of the sample. Col. 5, ll. 33-37, “a detector configured to detect the image and generate image data.” Note, the path between the detector and the image is the detection beam path);
a detection objective having an original depth of field in a direction of a detection axis in the detection beam path and configured for imaging the detection radiation (FIGS. 1A, 1B, and 2 depict the objective with some depth of field in the detection axis for capturing with the detectors);
an optical element located in a pupil of the detection beam path, the optical element being configured to extend the depth of field over the original depth of field (FIGS. 1A, 1B, and 2 each disclose a plurality of optical elements such as a distortion optical element, wherein the imaging systems are EDF imaging systems for “extended depth of field,” see Abstract);
a detector configured to capture from the detection radiation guided along the detection beam path, and to resolve in two-dimensions, the signals as image data, wherein the detection objective is configured to image the detection radiation onto the detector (FIGS. 1A, 1B, and 2 each disclose detectors for capturing images of the sample. Col. 5, ll. 33-37, “a detector configured to detect the image and generate image data. Col. 3, ll. 37-55 describes imaging a focal plane, the regions for imaging based on the optical elements and objective); and
a computer configured to: evaluate the image data read from the detector, based on a point spread function (PSF) of the detection objective, which is modified along the detection beam path by the depth of field that is extended over the original depth of field, to ascertain a number of the captured signals, to assign the number of signals to an image region, and store the number of signals assigned to the image region (col. 5, ll. 34-35, “a processor configured to process the image data.” FIG. 18 depicts enumerating the cells in the image and associated with a channel and see FIGS. 20 and 21, the data being in memory. FIG. 4, step 18, “determine the modified point spread function of the imaging system.” Col. 17, ll. 8-26 describe a PSF needs to be determined based on the deformed optical wave front. Each of col. 3, ll. 51-55 and col. 5, ll. 7-25 describe two different micron depth of fields, one being an extended depth of field, for which the PSF is modified to account for the depth of field. Col. 3, ll. 33-43 describes how an extended object in the z-axis requires imaging in the extended z-axis).
Ortyn fails to expressly disclose a laser light source; and
an illumination objective configured for receiving the illumination radiation and for focusing the received illumination radiation along an illumination radiation beam path to generate a light sheet of illumination radiation in the sample, the light sheet having a thickness corresponding to an extended depth of field region.
However, Anhut teaches a laser light source ([0075], “a laser light source 2”); and
an illumination objective (FIG. 1, objective 1) configured for receiving the illumination radiation and for focusing the received illumination radiation along an illumination radiation beam path to generate a light sheet of illumination radiation in the sample, the light sheet having a thickness corresponding to an extended depth of field region (FIG. 1, objective 1 receives illumination from illumination beam path 5 generated at the laser light source 2. [0021], “the light sheet passes through the entire sample volume to be imaged.” Note, the extended depth field being the depth of the sample, which is entirely illuminated by the light sheet).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have to have used a laser light source for generating a light sheet, as taught by Anhut (FIG. 1), in Ortyn’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Ortyn’s invention, by incorporating Anhut’s invention, for improving the light sheet microscopy (Anhut: [0018]) and to have better results of three-dimensional sample representations (Anhut: [0097]).
Regarding claim 19, Ortyn and Anhut disclose every limitation of claim 18, as outlined above. Additionally, Anhut discloses wherein the optical element includes an axicon or an axicon phase mask and configured to convert the detection radiation into a Bessel beam ([0085], “In the detection beam path, the axicon 19 is positioned between the two lens groups 15, 16a. The axicon 19 transforms the detection light into a Bessel-shaped light beam”). The same motivation of claim 18 applies to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Ortyn and Anhut discloses every limitation of claim 18, as outlined above. Additionally, Ortyn discloses wherein the optical element includes a cubic phase mask (col. 17, ll. 51-53, “a phase plate was modeled and consists of an optically clear element having a two-axis cubic waveform” and col. 24, ll. 1-3 describes a “cubic WFC element”).
Regarding claim 23, Ortyn and Anhut disclose every limitation of claim 18, as outlined above. Additionally, Anhut discloses wherein the optical element includes at least one liquid lens, an adaptive mirror, or a microlens array ([0059], “the optical device for increasing the depth of field Sobj comprises an axicon, a phase mask or a microlens array”). The same motivation of claim 18 applies to claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, Ortyn and Anhut disclose every limitation of claim 18, as outlined above. Additionally, Anbut discloses wherein the illumination objective and the detection objective are the same objective (FIG. 1, through objective 1 passes both the illumination beam 5 and the detection beam 12). The same motivation of claim 18 applies to claim 24.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent No. 8,005,314 B2 (hereinafter “Ortyn”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0068080 A1 (hereinafter “Anhut”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2011/0174986 A1 (hereinafter “Kempe”).
Regarding claim 21, Ortyn and Anhut disclose every limitation of claim 18, as outlined above. Ortyn and Anhut fail to expressly disclose wherein the optical element includes a ring phase mask.
However, Kempe teaches wherein the optical element includes a ring phase mask ([0072], “phase masks (such as a ring phase mask)”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have to have used a ring phase mask, as taught by Kempe ([0033]), in Ortyn and Anhut’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Ortyn and Anhut’s invention, by incorporating Kempe’s invention, to have an improved localization accuracy of the molecule with improved resolution (Kempe: [0027]) and improved correlations between molecules and structures in a sample (Kempe: [0029]).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent No. 8,005,314 B2 (hereinafter “Ortyn”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0068080 A1 (hereinafter “Anhut”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0205609 A1 (hereinafter “Fukuyama”).
Regarding claim 22, Ortyn and Anhut disclose every limitation of claim 18, as outlined above. Ortyn and Anhut fail to expressly disclose wherein the optical element includes a birefringent element.
However, Fukuyama wherein the optical element includes a birefringent element ([0191-0194] and [0201-0202] describes birefringent elements).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included a birefringent element, as taught by Fukuyama ([0191-0194]), in Ortyn and Anhut’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Ortyn and Anhut’s invention, by incorporating Fukuyama’s invention, to improve image quality of the optical system (Fukuyama: [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 25-32 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481