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 .
Examiner’s Comment
Examiner notes “the applicant cannot, as a matter of right, file a request for continued examination (RCE) on claims that are independent and distinct from the claims previously claimed and examined (i.e., applicant cannot switch inventions by way of an RCE as a matter of right).” See MPEP § 819. Examiner further notes “Applicants cannot file an RCE to obtain continued examination on the basis of claims that are independent and distinct from, or lack unity of invention with, the claims previously elected and examined as a matter of right (i.e., applicant cannot switch inventions). See 37 CFR 1.145.” See MPEP § MPEP § 706.07(h).
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 30 January 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (Claims 17-18, and 21-29) in the reply filed on 06 May 2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that “It is respectfully submitted that the claims of Groups I and II share the common special technical features of continuously changing the sample volume velocity of the sample volume, wherein the sample volume velocity is in a first direction, and continuously changing the light sheet velocity of the light sheet based on and simultaneously with the continuously changing the sample volume velocity. In contrast to the assertions in the Restriction Requirement, US 2020/0183138 A1 by Tomer ("Tomer") does not disclose or suggest these features. As argued in Applicant's prior response, Tomer teaches for the sequence illustrated in FIGS. 7A through 7E, the stage remains in a fixed [x,y] position; the Z position may be changed in steps until an entire volume is scanned; then the stage moved to a different [x,y] coordinate to sample an array of tiles of a slab. (See Tomer, FIG. 9, and paragraph [0059].) In the sequence from FIG. 7A to 7E, the illumination beam is traversed by controlling the optical scanning device 320 with the controller 410. The controller may position the motorized flip mirrors 310, 316 to pass illumination light through the electrically tunable lens (ETL) 312. Thus, the sheet beams 353 will be moved progressively or in stages. (See Tomer, FIGS. 7A - 7E and 8, and paragraph [0059].) Paragraph [0045] of Tomer cited in the Restriction Requirement is consistent with the above description of Tomer and likewise does not disclose or suggest to continuously and simultaneously change both a sample volume velocity and a light sheet velocity. In particular, paragraph [0045] of Tomer merely refers to the z position movement of the sample through a stationary light sheet, which can be step-wise or continuous, while the sample remains at the stationary [x,y] position. Tomer does not disclose or suggest to move both the sample and the light sheet continuously and simultaneously at any point. Rejoinder and examination of the non-elected claims are therefore respectfully requested.”
This is not found persuasive because the argument merely focuses on a single implementation and ignores the prior art reference of Tomer as a whole. Examiner reminds the applicant that “the use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Tomer expressly discloses continuously moving the sample while imaging (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]), synchronously moving the effective illumination light sheet ([0045]), and a controller that controls both sample positioning and light sheet positioning (LSTM system having controller 410 to perform function that automatically performs calibration by sparsely automatically sampling of imaging planes at multiple positions in sample, adaptive optics correct, e.g., light sheet displacement relative to detection focal plane; [0057], each tile formed by sequence illustrated in figs. 7a-7e and for each, z-axis slices may be acquired, array of tiles obtained to image a slab volume, speed doubled by acquiring samples at two depths simultaneously using system such as described with regard to fig. 5a, i.e., LSTM system 300; [0062], slab 372 moved by traversing system 406 that moves an X-Y-Z-theta stage, e.g., under control of controller 410; [0059]; fig. 8). Tomer further discloses that the illuminated line volume is scanned by moving the region where the light sheet intersects the focal plane while the sample may simultaneously undergo continuous traversal ([0039], [0045-46], [0059], [0062]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tomer’s disclosures as expressly teaching coordinated, simultaneous control of both light sheet and sample motions to maintain imaging of an illuminated volume. In response to the applicant's argument that "the sample remains at the stationary [x,y] position," the Examiner reminds the applicant that the prior art disclosures recited in para. [0003] of Tomer were not relied upon in the restriction requirement, and fig. 7a is a single implementation of a disclosed LSTM system. Tomer discloses that, for a sequence illustrated in FIGS. 7A through 7E, the stage may remain in a fixed position after which it's z position may be changed in steps until an entire volume is scanned and then the stage moved to a different coordinate (See FIG. 9) to sample an array of tiles of a slab ([0059]). Examiner submits that the special technical feature(s) does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Tomer and neither does it require any particular control algorithm or specific velocity function beyond changing the light sheet volume velocity based on changing sample volume velocity.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-16, and 20 (Group I) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06 May 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see the response to arguments below in the present Office action. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Claim 18 recites, in part, "one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums having processor-executable instructions stored thereon, the processor-executable instructions, when executed by one or more processors, causing performance of a method for controlling a microscope." It is respectfully submitted that the term "processors" would connote specific structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art," the Examiner traverses. The issue is not whether the word “processor” may generally connote specific structure to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The issue is whether the instant application provides sufficient disclosure of the particular processor(s) and the corresponding processor-executable instructions that allegedly perform the claimed microscope control method. Examiner submits that the specification merely mentions a processor generically and no algorithm, software architecture, processing flow, or methodology is disclosed for performing the claimed control operations. Merely reciting a generic processor does not provide support for “processor-executable instructions” that cause performance of the claimed method, nor does it adequately demonstrate possession of the full scope of the claimed computer-readable medium. Claim 18 effectively recites a desired result implemented by unspecified software running on an unspecified, generic processor. Examiner reminds the applicant that it is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function.”), quoting Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007). MPEP § 2163.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Support for the amendments can be found, for example, in paragraphs [0097], [0098], and [0101] - [0108] of the present published specification (US 2022/0342196 A1), and FIGS. 2, 3, and 4 (showing the sample volume velocity and the light sheet velocity increasing or decreasing simultaneously)," the Examiner traverses. Examiner suggests that any specification-related references are to be made to the as-filed specification rather than to the US patent publication document. Examiner submits that no drawings illustrate the method steps specified in the claims. Examiner also reminds the applicant that the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. See 37 CFR 1.83(a) and MPEP § 608.02(d).
In response to the applicant's argument that "It is respectfully submitted that Tomer does not disclose, "continuously changing…velocity is performed such that the first direction is opposite to the second direction, or the first direction is same as the second direction," as recited in amended claim 17 (emphasis added), as discussed below," the Examiner traverses. Tomer expressly discloses continuously moving the sample while imaging (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]), synchronously moving the effective illumination light sheet ([0045]), and a controller that controls both sample positioning and light sheet positioning (LSTM system having controller 410 to perform function that automatically performs calibration by sparsely automatically sampling of imaging planes at multiple positions in sample, adaptive optics correct, e.g., light sheet displacement relative to detection focal plane; [0057], each tile formed by sequence illustrated in figs. 7a-7e and for each, z-axis slices may be acquired, array of tiles obtained to image a slab volume, speed doubled by acquiring samples at two depths simultaneously using system such as described with regard to fig. 5a, i.e., LSTM system 300; [0062], slab 372 moved by traversing system 406 that moves an X-Y-Z-theta stage, e.g., under control of controller 410; [0059]; fig. 8). Tomer further discloses that the illuminated line volume is scanned by moving the region where the light sheet intersects the focal plane while the sample may simultaneously undergo continuous traversal ([0039], [0045-46], [0059], [0062]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tomer’s disclosures as expressly teaching coordinated, simultaneous control of both light sheet and sample motions to maintain imaging of an illuminated volume. See § 102 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Thus, in Tomer, to scan a single tile, the sample stage remains stationary, while the sheet beam 353 is scanned. That is, the sample stage has a velocity of zero and the velocity remains unchanged at zero while the sheet beam is scanned. Therefore, Tomer does not disclose, "continuously changing…rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Tomer is respectfully requested," the Examiner traverses. Applicant’s argument is unsupported by and mischaracterizes the teachings of the prior art reference of Tomer. Examiner reminds the applicant that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Tomer does not teach that the sample stage “remains stationary” throughout the scan or that its velocity is fixed at zero. Tomer explicitly discloses that “the stage may remain in a fixed position after which it's z position may be changed in steps until an entire volume is scanned and then the stage moved to a different coordinate (See FIG. 9) to sample an array of tiles of a slab” ([0059]). In other words, the stage may remain in a fixed position for one exemplary scan sequence (fig. 7a) before changing position. Tomer further discloses the three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner (or continuously at slow speed, while imaging), or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet ([0045]). Thus, applicant’s assertion ignores Tomer’s explicit disclosure. See previous response to arguments above and § 102 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "It is respectfully submitted that Tomer does not disclose, "continuously changing…reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Tomer is respectfully requested," the Examiner traverses. See previous response to arguments above and § 102 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 14-16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Tomer is respectfully requested," the Examiner traverses. Claims 14-16, and 20 (Group I) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
In response to the applicant's argument that "New claims 21-29 depend from independent claim 17. It is therefore respectfully submitted that new claims 21-29 are allowable over the cited prior art for at least the same reasons as independent claim 17, discussed above," the Examiner traverses. See previous response to arguments above and § 102 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “processor-executable instructions,” as recited in Claim 18.
Appropriate correction is required.
A substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because a new specification is required if the number or nature of the amendments render it difficult to consider the application or to arrange the papers for printing or copying, 37 CFR 1.125.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
The interlineations or cancellations made in the specification or amendments to the claims could lead to confusion and mistake during the issue and printing processes. Accordingly, the portion of the specification or claims as identified below is required to be rewritten before passing the case to issue. See 37 CFR 1.125 and MPEP § 608.01(q).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method for controlling a microscope must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner notes that “the applicant for a patent is required to furnish a drawing of the invention where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented…Drawings may include illustrations which facilitate an understanding of the invention (for example, flow sheets in cases of processes, and diagrammatic views). See 37 CFR 1.81.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-18, and 21-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to Claims 17, and 21-22, and 24-28, the recitation(s) “the continuously changing the sample volume velocity” and “ the continuously changing the light sheet velocity” are grammatically incorrect.
With respect to Claims 17, the recitation(s) “the first direction is same as the second direction” is grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-18, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to Claims 17 and 18, it is unclear what constitutes the “sample volume” and how a “sample volume velocity of a sample volume of the microscope” differs from movement of the sample itself. Furthermore, the recitation “continuously changing, via a light sheet actuator of the microscope, a light sheet velocity of a light sheet of the microscope based on and simultaneously with the continuously changing the sample volume velocity” is ambiguous, for the scope of “based on” is unclear since its nature and/or degree of requirement is not defined. The relative terminology of “continuously changing” lacks objective boundaries since it is unclear what rate, duration, or frequency of change satisfies the claim limitation(s).
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a method for controlling a microscope and non-transitory computer-readable mediums.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-18 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomer US 20200183138 A1.
With respect to Claim 17, Tomer discloses a method for controlling a microscope, the microscope being a light sheet microscope (light sheet theta microscopy, LSTM system 300; [0006], [0057]), the method comprising:
continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]), via a sample actuator (slab 372 moved by traversing system 406 that moves an X-Y-Z-theta stage, e.g., under control of controller 410; [0059]; fig. 8) of the microscope (light sheet theta microscopy, LSTM system 300; [0006], [0057]), a sample volume velocity of a sample volume (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]) of the microscope (light sheet theta microscopy, LSTM system 300; [0006], [0057]), wherein the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]) is in a first direction (X, Y, or Z direction as first direction, through X-Y-Z-theta stage; [0059]);
continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]), via a light sheet actuator (controller 410 positions motorized flip mirrors to pass illumination light through electrically tunable lens, ETL 312; [0059]) of the microscope (light sheet theta microscopy, LSTM system 300; [0006], [0057]), a light sheet velocity of a light sheet (illumination sheet beams 353 move progressively or in stages; [0059]) of the microscope (light sheet theta microscopy, LSTM system 300; [0006], [0057]) based on and simultaneously with (LSTM system having controller 410 to perform function that automatically performs calibration by sparsely automatically sampling of imaging planes at multiple positions in sample, adaptive optics correct, e.g., light sheet displacement relative to detection focal plane; [0057], each tile formed by sequence illustrated in figs. 7a-7e and for each, z-axis slices may be acquired, array of tiles obtained to image a slab volume, speed doubled by acquiring samples at two depths simultaneously using system such as described with regard to fig. 5a, i.e., LSTM system 300; [0062]) the continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]) the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]), wherein the light sheet velocity (illumination sheet beams 353 move progressively or in stages; [0059]) is in a second direction (illumination sheet beams 353 moved progressively or in stages, a few seen in figs. 7a-7e, at each position, progressive and continuous or discrete, exposed pixel line 204 is sampled thereby selecting a then-current line image of illuminated linear volume 219; [0059]),
wherein the continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]) the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]) is performed such that the first direction (X, Y, or Z direction as first direction, through X-Y-Z-theta stage; [0059]) is opposite to the second direction, or the first direction (X, Y, or Z direction as first direction, through X-Y-Z-theta stage; [0059]) is same as the second direction (figs. 7a-7e illustrate stages of a scan of a tile of a larger slab, scanning is performed optically for one of a matrix of positions of X-Y-Z-theta stage that positions the slab, the line readout in camera and illumination can be synchronously scanned in opposite direction as well; [0019]).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
With respect to Claim 18, Tomer discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums (non-transitory computer readable medium; [0126-131]) having processor-executable instructions stored thereon (execute a sequence of programmed instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium; [0126]), the processor-executable instructions ([0126]), when executed by one or more processors (processor; [0126-131]), causing performance of a method (capturing three dimensional optical images implemented through a processor configured to execute a sequence of programmed instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium; [0126-131]) for controlling a microscope, the microscope being a light sheet microscope (light sheet theta microscopy, LSTM system 300; [0006], [0057]), the method comprising:
continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]), via a sample actuator (slab 372 moved by traversing system 406 that moves an X-Y-Z-theta stage, e.g., under control of controller 410; [0059]; fig. 8) of the microscope (light sheet theta microscopy, LSTM system 300; [0006], [0057]), a sample volume velocity of a sample volume (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]) of the microscope (light sheet theta microscopy, LSTM system 300; [0006], [0057]), wherein the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]) is in a first direction (X, Y, or Z direction as first direction, through X-Y-Z-theta stage; [0059]); and
continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]), via a light sheet actuator (controller 410 positions motorized flip mirrors to pass illumination light through electrically tunable lens, ETL 312; [0059]) of the microscope (light sheet theta microscopy, LSTM system 300; [0006], [0057]), a light sheet velocity of a light sheet (illumination sheet beams 353 move progressively or in stages; [0059]) of the microscope (light sheet theta microscopy, LSTM system 300; [0006], [0057]) based on and simultaneously with (LSTM system having controller 410 to perform function that automatically performs calibration by sparsely automatically sampling of imaging planes at multiple positions in sample, adaptive optics correct, e.g., light sheet displacement relative to detection focal plane; [0057], each tile formed by sequence illustrated in figs. 7a-7e and for each, z-axis slices may be acquired, array of tiles obtained to image a slab volume, speed doubled by acquiring samples at two depths simultaneously using system such as described with regard to fig. 5a, i.e., LSTM system 300; [0062]) continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]) the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]), wherein the light sheet velocity (illumination sheet beams 353 move progressively or in stages; [0059]) is in a second direction (illumination sheet beams 353 moved progressively or in stages, a few seen in figs. 7a-7e, at each position, progressive and continuous or discrete, exposed pixel line 204 is sampled thereby selecting a then-current line image of illuminated linear volume 219; [0059]),
wherein the continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]) the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]) is performed such that the first direction (X, Y, or Z direction as first direction, through X-Y-Z-theta stage; [0059]) is opposite to the second direction, or the first direction (X, Y, or Z direction as first direction, through X-Y-Z-theta stage; [0059]) is same as the second direction (figs. 7a-7e illustrate stages of a scan of a tile of a larger slab, scanning is performed optically for one of a matrix of positions of X-Y-Z-theta stage that positions the slab, the line readout in camera and illumination can be synchronously scanned in opposite direction as well; [0019]).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
With respect to Claim 21, Tomer discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]) the light sheet velocity (illumination sheet beams 353 move progressively or in stages; [0059]) is performed such that the light sheet velocity (illumination sheet beams 353 move progressively or in stages; [0059]) relative to the microscope (light sheet theta microscopy, LSTM system 300; [0006], [0057]) is different from the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]) relative to the microscope (light sheet theta microscopy, LSTM system 300; [0006], [0057]) in at least one of a direction and an absolute value (figs. 7a-7e illustrate stages of a scan of a tile of a larger slab, scanning is performed optically for one of a matrix of positions of X-Y-Z-theta stage that positions the slab, the line readout in camera and illumination can be synchronously scanned in opposite direction as well; [0019]).
With respect to Claim 22, Tomer discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]) the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]) and the continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]) the light sheet velocity (illumination sheet beams 353 move progressively or in stages; [0059]) are performed such that a scan velocity of the light sheet relative to the sample volume is constant (e.g., the stage may remain in a fixed position i.e., constant scan velocity of zero; [0059]; figs. 7a-7e).
With respect to Claim 23, Tomer discloses the method of claim 22, further comprising determining at least one of (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet, imaging speed can be further increased by simultaneously imaging the sample, a continuous motion of the sample may be used to traverse laterally instead of moving the exposed pixel line; [0045]) the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]), the light sheet velocity (illumination sheet beams 353 move progressively or in stages; [0059]), and the scan velocity (e.g., the stage may remain in a fixed position i.e., constant scan velocity of zero; [0059]; figs. 7a-7e).
With respect to Claim 24, Tomer discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]) the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]) and the continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]) the light sheet velocity (illumination sheet beams 353 move progressively or in stages; [0059]) comprise decreasing the light sheet velocity (illumination sheet beams 353 move progressively or in stages; [0059]) while increasing the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]), AND/OR increasing (synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet and the exposed pixel line resolved by the detection arm, imaging speed can be further increased; [0045]) the light sheet velocity (illumination sheet beams 353 move progressively or in stages; [0059]) while decreasing (moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner or continuously at slow speed, while imaging; [0045]) the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]).
With respect to Claim 25, Tomer discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]) the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]) is based on a position of the light sheet (moving the sample across the illuminated sheet, e.g., light-sheet displaced axially along the direction of propagation; [0045-46]; figs. 7a-9) in an adjustment range (sheet beams 353 will be moved progressively or in stages, a few of which are shown in figs. 7a-7e; [0059]).
With respect to Claim 26, Tomer discloses the method of claim 25, wherein the continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]) the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]) is performed such that the first direction (X, Y, or Z direction as first direction, through X-Y-Z-theta stage; [0059]) is same as the second direction if the light sheet is located in a predetermined region (figs. 7d & 7e) at limits of the adjustment range (sheet beams 353 will be moved progressively or in stages, exposed pixel line 204 is sampled thereby selecting a then-current line image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0059]; same velocity direction as seen in figs. 7d & 7e).
With respect to Claim 27, Tomer discloses the method of claim 25, wherein the continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]) the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]) is performed such that the position of the light sheet is at a center of the adjustment range (sheet beams 353 will be moved progressively or in stages, a few of which are shown in figs. 7a-7e; [0059]; sheet beams 353 positioned at center of adjustment range as seen in figs. 7a-7e).
With respect to Claim 28, Tomer discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]) the sample volume velocity (e.g., sample 336 mounted for translation and rotation movement, mounted on an XYZ-theta motorized stage, 204 is sampled, image of the illuminated linear volume 219; [0055]) and the continuously changing (three-dimensional volumes are acquired by either moving the sample across the illuminated sheet in a stepwise manner, or continuously at slow speed, while imaging, or by synchronously moving the effective illumination light-sheet; [0045]) the light sheet velocity (illumination sheet beams 353 move progressively or in stages; [0059]) comprise changing an orientation of the first direction (X, Y, or Z direction as first direction, through X-Y-Z-theta stage; [0059]) with respect to the second direction from a parallel orientation to an antiparallel orientation AND/OR from an antiparallel orientation to a parallel orientation (traversing system 406 in fig. 8 moves an X-Y-Z-theta stage under control of a controller 410, for a sequence illustrated in figs. 7a-7e, the stage may remain in a fixed position after which it's z position may be changed in steps until an entire volume is scanned and then the stage moved to a different coordinate; [0059], each tile may be formed by the sequence illustrated in figs. 7a-7e and for each, z-axis slices may be acquired; [0062], in variations, the traversing system is an X-Y-Z traversing system, where X and Y axes are parallel to a major plane of the sample volume and the Z axis is perpendicular thereto; [0115]).
With respect to Claim 29, Tomer discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the light sheet is moved in a direction perpendicular to the light sheet (traversing system 406 in fig. 8 moves an X-Y-Z-theta stage under control of a controller 410, for a sequence illustrated in figs. 7a-7e, the stage may remain in a fixed position after which it's z position may be changed in steps until an entire volume is scanned and then the stage moved to a different coordinate; [0059], each tile may be formed by the sequence illustrated in figs. 7a-7e and for each, z-axis slices may be acquired; [0062], in variations, the traversing system is an X-Y-Z traversing system, where X and Y axes are parallel to a major plane of the sample volume and the Z axis is perpendicular thereto; [0115]; sheet beams 353 moved in perpendicular direction as seen in figs. 7a-7c).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Keller et al. US 20150098126 A1 discloses multiview light-sheet microscopy substantially similar to that of the claimed invention. Takao et al. discloses high-speed imaging of amoeboid movements using light-sheet microscopy substantially similar to that of the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 25 June 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights