DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal Brief
In view of the appeal brief filed on 08/19/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/PINPING SUN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 12/03/2025 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application, claims 11-13 have been withdrawn.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knebel (US20020020800A1; foreign equivalent DE 10039520 A1 0f record) (of record) in view of Gugel (US20120236398A1) (of record) in view of Breedijk (WO2018151599A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Knebel discloses a laser scanning microscope (Fig. 1– microscope, see also: [0057]) with an optical system (elements 4 and 8, light sources, elements 12 and 16, beam deflection devices, and element 2, microscope objective, see also: [0054]-[0058])
which comprises
two light sources (Fig. 1– elements 4 and 8, light sources; see also: [0054]),
an optoelectronic detector (Fig. 1– element 6, detector; see also: [0054]),
four movable beam deflection units (Fig. 1– elements 12 and 16, beam deflection devices; see also: [0057] and [0024]: elements 12 and 16 can include two mirror units which can rotate about two orthogonal axis) a microscope objective (Fig. 1– element 2, microscope objective, see also: [0058]) with a pupil plane (Fig. 1– element 9, manipulation light beam path; see also: [0059]) and a focal plane (Fig. 1– element 1, object, see also: [0054]), and
a control unit (Fig. 1– element 18, control computer; see also: [0057]),
wherein the third and the fourth of the beam deflection units (Fig. 1– element 12, beam deflection devices; see also: [0024], [0057]) are arranged in or in the vicinity of a plane that is conjugate to the pupil plane (Fig. 1– element 9, manipulation light beam path; see also: [0059])
and the first and the second of the beam deflection units (Fig. 1– element 16, beam deflection devices; see also: [0024], [0057]) are arranged upstream of the third and upstream of the fourth beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 12, beam deflection devices; see also: [0024], [0057]) in the illumination direction
and the optical system (elements 4 and 8, light sources, elements 12 and 16, beam deflection devices, and element 2, microscope objective, see also: [0054]-[0058]) includes said four beam deflection units (Fig. 1– elements 12 and 16, beam deflection devices; see also: [0057] and [0024]: elements 12 and 16 can include two mirror units which can rotate about two orthogonal axis) to guide light from the first light source (Fig. 1– element 8, light source; see also: [0054]) through the objective (Fig. 1– element 2, microscope objective, see also: [0058]) into the focal plane (Fig. 1– element 1, object, see also: [0054]), and includes the third and the fourth of the beam deflection units to guide light from the second light source (Fig. 1– element 4, light source; see also: [0054]) through the objective (Fig. 1– element 2, microscope objective, see also: [0058]) into the focal plane (Fig. 1– element 1, object, see also: [0054]), said first and the second beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 16, beam deflection devices; see also: [0024], [0057]) not being used to guide light from the second light source (Fig. 1– element 4, light source; see also: [0054]) through the objective (Fig. 1– element 2, microscope objective, see also: [0058]) into the focal plane (Fig. 1– element 1, object, see also: [0054]), and images a point of the focal plane (Fig. 1– element 1, object, see also: [0054]) through the objective (Fig. 1– element 2, microscope objective, see also: [0058]) onto the detector (Fig. 1– element 6, detector; see also: [0054]) and has no light guiding fibers between the first light source (Fig. 1– element 8, light source; see also: [0054]) and the third beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 12, beam deflection devices; see also: [0024]: the beam deflection device may comprise multiple mirrors), and
wherein the control unit is configured to (i) record a test image through the objective by means of the optoelectronic detector from illumination by the first light source by scanning at least a portion of the focal plane by means of the third and fourth beam deflection unit, and is configured to (ii) adjust the first and/or the second beam deflection unit using the test image.
However, Knebel does not disclose wherein the optical system has a light guiding fiber optically located between the second light source and the third beam deflection unit
Knebel and Gugel are related as both pertaining to the field of microscopes. Gugel does disclose wherein the optical system (Fig. 2—elements 18, laser, and 13, light-conducting fiber; see also: [0028]) has a light guiding fiber (Fig. 2—element 13, light-conducting fiber; see also: [0028]) optically located between the second light source (Fig. 2—element 18, laser; see also: [0028]) and the third beam deflection unit (Fig. 2—element 23, scanning module; see also: [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optical system of Knebel with the optical fiber of Gugel in order to create a microscope with a point light source which allows for the components to drift from their intended positions without changing the focus of the microscope (Gugel, [0015]).
However, Knebel and Gugel do not disclose wherein the control unit is configured to (i) record a test image through the objective by means of the optoelectronic detector from illumination by the first light source by scanning at least a portion of the focal plane by means of the third and fourth beam deflection unit, and is configured to (ii) adjust the first and/or the second beam deflection unit using the test image.
Knebel, Gugel, and Breedijk are related as all pertaining to the field of microscopes. Breedijk does disclose a device (Fig. 1-- scanning microscopy system; Page 17, line 36) wherein the control unit (Fig. 1—element 120, computer system; Page 19, line 7) is configured to (i) record a test image (Page 12, line 3: calibration image) through the objective (Fig. 1—the sample, element 112, is located on the sample holder, the calibration image is collected via the microscope objective) by means of the optoelectronic detector (Fig. 1—element 118, imaging system; Page 18, line 20) from illumination by the first light source (Page 12: the sample is aligned with an illumination light spot) by scanning at least a portion of the focal plane by means of the third and fourth beam deflection unit (Page 12: the imaging system captures an image of the sample via elements 106 and 104), and is configured to (ii) adjust the first and/or the second beam deflection unit using the test image (Page 12: at least one scanning mirror, elements 114 and 108, changes orientation in response to calibration data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the laser scanning microscope of Knebel and Gugel with the test image calibration of Breedijk in order to create a system which is capable of capturing images in more than one imaging state (Breedijk, Page 12, Lines 18-20) allowing the user to image samples in different regions without manually adjusting the optical elements.
With respect to Claim 2, Knebel, Gugel, and Breedijk disclose the microscope (Fig. 1– microscope, see also: [0057]) as claimed in claim 1, Knebel further discloses the control unit (Fig. 1– element 18, control computer; see also: [0057]) and the first and/or the second beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 16, beam deflection devices; see also: [0024], [0057]).
Knebel and Gugel do not further disclose wherein said test image is used by the control unit to adjust the first and/or the second beam deflection unit in a plurality of iterations of test image recording and setting of the relevant beam deflection unit.
Knebel, Gugel, and Breedijk are related as all pertaining to the field of microscopes. Breedijk does disclose a device (Fig. 1-- scanning microscopy system; Page 17, line 36) wherein said test image (Page 12, line 3: calibration image) is used by the control unit (Fig. 1—element 120, computer system; Page 19, line 7) to adjust the first and/or the second beam deflection unit (Page 12: at least one scanning mirror, elements 114 and 108, changes orientation in response to calibration data) in a plurality of iterations of test image recording and setting of the relevant beam deflection unit (Page 12: several images of the sample may be recorded in over different regions in order to determine an optical state that is associated with different regions of the sample). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the laser scanning microscope of Knebel and Gugel with the test image calibration of Breedijk in order to create a system which is capable of calibrating the device in order to capture images in more than one imaging state (Breedijk, Page 12, Lines 18-20) allowing the user to image samples in different regions without manually adjusting the optical elements.
With respect to Claim 3, Knebel, Gugel, and Breedijk disclose the microscope (Fig. 1– microscope, see also: [0057]) as claimed in claim 2, Knebel further discloses the control unit (Fig. 1– element 18, control computer; see also: [0057]) and the first beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 16, beam deflection devices; see also [0024]: the beam deflection device may comprise multiple mirrors), which is arranged upstream or downstream of the second beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 16, beam deflection devices; see also [0024]: the beam deflection device may comprise multiple mirrors) in the illumination direction.
Knebel and Gugel do not further disclose wherein the control unit includes means for ascertaining a characteristic for an illumination of the test image and sets the first beam deflection unit, on the basis of the ascertained characteristic, in particular with a homogeneity and/or intensity of the illumination of the test image as the characteristic the control unit uses to set the first beam deflection unit.
Knebel, Gugel, and Breedijk are related as all pertaining to the field of microscopes.
Breedijk does disclose a device (Fig. 1-- scanning microscopy system; Page 17, line 36) wherein the control unit (Fig. 1—element 120, computer system; Page 19, line 7) includes means for ascertaining a characteristic for an illumination (Page 11: the processor obtains calibration data pertaining to the exposure of different regions of a sample to illumination light) of the test image (Page 12, line 3: calibration image) and sets the first beam deflection unit (Page 12: at least one scanning mirror, elements 114 and 108, changes orientation in response to calibration data), on the basis of the ascertained characteristic, in particular with a homogeneity and/or intensity of the illumination of the test image as the characteristic (Page 11 and 12: the control unit alters the position of the scanning mirror to illuminate the sample in the correct location) the control unit (Fig. 1—element 120, computer system; Page 19, line 7) uses to set the first beam deflection unit (Page 12: at least one scanning mirror, elements 114 and 108, changes orientation in response to calibration data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the laser scanning microscope of Knebel and Gugel with the test image calibration of Breedijk in order to create a system which is capable of capturing images in more than one imaging state (Breedijk, Page 12, Lines 18-20) allowing the user to image samples in different regions without manually adjusting the optical elements.
With respect to Claim 8, Knebel, Gugel, and Breedijk disclose the microscope (Fig. 1– microscope, see also: [0057]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first and the second beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 16, beam deflection devices; see also: [0024], [0057]) are each formed as a mirror ([0024]: the bean deflection devices may be mirrors) which is rotatable about two different spatial axes ([0024]: the bean deflection devices may be mirrors may rotate about two axes).
With respect to Claim 9, Knebel, Gugel, and Breedijk disclose the microscope (Fig. 1– microscope, see also: [0057]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the third and the fourth beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 12, beam deflection devices; see also: [0024], [0057]) are each formed as a mirror which is rotatable about exactly one spatial axis ([0024]: the bean deflection devices may be mirrors may rotate about one axis), in particular each formed as a galvanometer mirror ([0024]: the bean deflection devices may be mirrors), wherein the spatial axis differs between the two beam deflection units, or wherein the third and the fourth beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 12, beam deflection devices; see also: [0024], [0057]) are formed together by one mirror which is rotatable about two different spatial axes (Fig. 1– element 12, beam deflection devices; see also [0024]: the beam deflection devices may be one mirror rotatable around one axis).
With respect to Claim 10, Knebel discloses a microscope (Fig. 1– microscope, see also: [0057]), wherein no calibration sample is optically placeable (Fig. 1-- the object, element 1, is not placed between the light sources and the objective) between the light sources (Fig. 1– elements 4 and 8, light sources; see also: [0054]) and the objective (Fig. 1– element 2, microscope objective, see also: [0058]) and/or wherein the optical system (elements 4 and 8, light sources, elements 12 and 16, beam deflection devices, and element 2, microscope objective, see also: [0054]-[0058]) between the first beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 16, beam deflection devices; see also [0024]: the beam deflection device may comprise multiple mirrors) and the objective (Fig. 1– element 2, microscope objective, see also: [0058]) and between the second beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 16, beam deflection devices; see also [0024]: the beam deflection device may comprise multiple mirrors) and the objective (Fig. 1– element 2, microscope objective, see also: [0058]) is without branchings to sensors for ascertaining a beam position and/or a beam direction, and/or wherein the first and second beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 16, beam deflection devices; see also [0024] and [0057]) have a constant setting for the duration of each image recording ([0032]: the beam position can be manipulated when the beam is not on).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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 the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
With respect to Claim 4, Knebel, Gugel, and Breedijk disclose the microscope as claimed in claim 1, Knebel further discloses the control unit (Fig. 1– element 18, control computer; see also: [0057]), the focal plane (Fig. 1– element 1, object, see also: [0054]), the second light source (Fig. 1– element 4, light source; see also: [0054]), the third and fourth beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 12, beam deflection devices; see also: [0024], [0057]), the second beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 16, beam deflection devices; see also [0024]: the beam deflection device may comprise multiple mirrors), and the first beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 16, beam deflection devices; see also [0024]: the beam deflection device may comprise multiple mirrors). However, neither Knebel, Gugel, and Breedijk or the closest prior art discloses wherein the control unit records a reference image from the focal plane from illumination by the second light source, wherein said control unit scans the focal plane by means of the third and fourth beam deflection unit, and ascertains a geometric offset between the test image and the reference image and sets the second beam deflection unit, which is arranged upstream or downstream of the first beam deflection unit in the illumination direction, on the basis of the ascertained offset, in particular in a plurality of iterations of iteratively adjusting the first beam deflection unit, subsequently recording the test image and adjusting the second beam deflection unit.
With respect to Claim 5, this claim is dependent on Claim 4 and is allowable at least for the reasons stated supra.
With respect to Claim 6, Knebel, Gugel, and Breedijk disclose the microscope as claimed in claim 1, and Knebel further discloses wherein the control unit (Fig. 1– element 18, control computer; see also: [0057]) has means for displacing the focal plane (Fig. 1– element 1, object, see also: [0054]) by means of an adjustable focusing unit ([0028]: mobile focusing means are arranged between the objective and the light source), wherein said control unit (Fig. 1– element 18, control computer; see also: [0057]) scans the displaced focal plane (Fig. 1– element 1, object, see also: [0054]) by means of the third and fourth beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 12, beam deflection devices; see also: [0024], [0057]), and adjusts the second beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 16, beam deflection devices; see also [0024]: the beam deflection device may comprise multiple mirrors), which is arranged upstream or downstream of the first beam deflection unit (Fig. 1– element 16, beam deflection devices; see also [0024]: the beam deflection device may comprise multiple mirrors) in the illumination direction.
Knebel, Gugel, and Breedijk are related as all pertaining to the field of microscopes.
Breedijk does disclose a device (Fig. 1-- scanning microscopy system; Page 17, line 36) wherein the test image (Page 12, line 3: calibration image) is recorded under illumination by the first light source (Page 12: the sample is aligned with an illumination light spot), in each case in particular in a plurality of iterations of iteratively setting the first beam deflection unit (Page 12: several images of the sample may be recorded in over different regions in order to determine an optical state that is associated with different regions of the sample), subsequently recording the first test image (Page 12, line 3: calibration image) and adjusting the second beam deflection unit (Page 12: at least one scanning mirror, elements 114 and 108, changes orientation in response to calibration data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the laser scanning microscope of Knebel and Gugel with the test image calibration of Breedijk in order to create a system which is capable of capturing images in more than one imaging state (Breedijk, Page 12, Lines 18-20).
However, neither Knebel, Gugel, and Breedijk or the closest prior art discloses wherein the control unit records a second test image from the displaced focal through the objective by means of the detector, wherein said control unit scans the displaced focal plane by means of the third and fourth beam deflection, and ascertains a geometric offset between the first test image and the second test image and adjusts the second beam deflection unit, which is arranged upstream or downstream of the first beam deflection unit in the illumination direction, on the basis of the ascertained offset, wherein the first test image is recorded under illumination by a different one of the light sources than the second test image or wherein both test images are recorded under illumination by the first light source, in each case in particular in a plurality of iterations of iteratively setting the first beam deflection unit, subsequently recording the first and second test images and adjusting the second beam deflection unit.
With respect to Claim 7, this claim is dependent on Claim 6 and is allowable at least for the reasons stated supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACKENZI BOURQUINE whose telephone number is (571)272-5956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 4:30 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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/MACKENZI BOURQUINE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872