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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 March 2025 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 regard to the newly added amendments recited in pages 9 and 10 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment dated 19 March 2025, the applicant has not pointed out where the amended claims are supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitations directed towards the processor being configured to perform the steps and methods provided in Claims 1-4 and 7-20, in the application as filed. With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007), MPEP § 2163.04. See also MPEP § 714.02, § 2163.06, AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1297, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014), In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972), and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that “[t]hus, if the currently light sheet velocity is zero, adjusting the light sheet velocity would make the light sheet velocity deviate from zero. Therefore, the light sheet velocity can be only instantaneously zero at a particular point of time, and will be changed to non-zero at a next instant of time,” the Examiner traverses. Applicant’s argument misinterprets the scope of “a light sheet velocity,” for a velocity of zero is still a valid, defined velocity state and falls within the literal meaning of the term. Claims 1, 17, and 18 require the ability to adjust the velocity, which includes adjustments to or from zero. Therefore, the system of any prior art directed towards a light sheet velocity can validly operate with a light sheet velocity of zero at any duration deemed appropriate, and changing it later does not negate that zero velocity was previously a valid state. Examiner asserts that this interpretation aligns with standard physical and technical usage of the term “velocity.” It is noted that "[t]he 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))." See MPEP § 2123.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that “[t]hus, Tomer merely discloses sampling different positions in the sample, which may involve moving the sample to different positions. Tomer, however, does not disclose adjusting a velocity of the sample volume and adjusting a velocity of the light sheet accordingly so that the velocity of the sample volume is the same direction or in the opposite direction from that of the velocity of the light sheet, as recited in each of amended claims 1, 17, and 18,” the Examiner traverses. Tomer discloses that a controller (410; fig. 8) connected to actuators performs movement of the X-Y-Z theta stage and illumination sheet beams (353, 354, 362, 366; [0057-59]). Tomer further discloses that scanning may be performed while the slab remains stationary in the Z direction (fig. 7a-7e), and thus, achieves active control over both the sample and light sheet movement ([0059]). Furthermore, Tomer discloses sequential movement of the illumination sheet beams wile sampling a pixel line, teaching the technical feature of adjusting a light sheet velocity ([0059-60]), and illustrates scanning progression across the sample (as seen in fig. 7a-7e). Therefore, the prior art of Tomer anticipates enabling control of sample and light sheet velocities for adjusting both in either the same or opposite directions through imaging requirements. Furthermore, because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and adjust a velocity of the sample volume and velocity of the light sheet accordingly so that the velocity of the sample volume is either in the same or opposite direction from that of the light sheet velocity. See MPEP § 2114(I)), In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification must label every feature of the invention specified in the claims1. Therefore, the processor (Claims 1 and 18) and method/method steps for controlling a microscope (Claims 17 and 18) must be labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims2. Therefore, the processor (Claims 1 and 18) and oblique plane microscope or SCAPE microscope (Claims 19 and 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a processor, a method/method steps for controlling a microscope, and the microscope comprises an oblique plane microscope or a SCAPE microscope as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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 Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a processor configured to...wherein the adjusting the sample volume velocity is performed such that the first direction is opposite to the second direction, or the first direction is same as the second direction" in Claims 1, 17 and 18, "processor is configured to measure or determine at least one of the sample volume velocity, the light sheet velocity, and the scan velocity" in Claim 11, and "the processor-executable instructions, when executed by one or more processors, causing performance of a method for controlling a microscope" in Claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4, 7-16, and 18-20 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 1-4, 7-16, and 18-20, the claim limitation “processor(s)” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. To be clear, the specification merely recites a processor wherein “[s]ome or all of the method steps may be executed by (or using) a hardware apparatus, like for example, a processor, a microprocessor, a programmable computer or an electronic circuit.” (page 10, lines 3-5 of as-filed specification dated 27 February 2022).
As such, the processor amounts to a general purpose computer, and the specification fails to provide any specific algorithm for achieving the function. However, to claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose processor/microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241. See also MPEP § 2181 (II)(B).
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 1-4 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomer US 20200183138 A1.
With respect to Claim 1, Tomer discloses a control device (controller 410; fig. 8; [0058-59]) for controlling a microscope, the microscope being a light sheet microscope (LSTM [light sheet theta microscopy]/microscope system 300; fig. 10; [0057-59] & [0063-70]), the control device comprising:
a processor (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]), configured to:
via a sample actuator of the microscope (traversing system 406 & electrical tunable lens 508; [0059-63]), adjust a sample volume velocity of a sample volume (illuminated linear volumes 219 & sample 336; [0057-59]) of the microscope (LSTM system 300; fig. 10; [0057-59]) relative to the microscope (traversal itinerary employing adaptive correction of detected parameters and interpolation from sparse intervals of samples; [0058]), wherein the sample volume velocity is in a first direction (as seen in fig. 7a-7e); and
via a light sheet actuator of the microscope (galvo scanner 514; [0063-69]), adjust a light sheet (illumination sheet beams 353, 354, 362, 366; [0057-59]) velocity of a light sheet of the microscope (LSTM system 300; fig. 10; [0057-59]) relative to the microscope based on the sample volume (illuminated linear volumes 219 & sample 336; [0057-59]) velocity (controller 410 connected to light sheet actuators to permit automated operation of the LSTM system; [0059]; as seen in fig. 7a-7d & 8), wherein the light sheet velocity is in a second direction (as seen in fig. 7a-7e),
wherein the adjusting the sample volume (illuminated linear volumes 219 & sample 336; [0057-59]) velocity is performed (traversal itinerary employing adaptive correction of detected parameters and interpolation from sparse intervals of samples; [0058]) such that the first direction is opposite to the second direction (opposite direction; [0019], e.g., direction of sheet beam 366 opposite of linear volume 219a at laterally different positions in fig. 6; [0057]), or the first direction is same as the second direction velocity (illumination light sheets from the same side of the sample as the detection objective; [0035], e.g., direction of sheet beam 366 same of linear volume 219b in fig. 6; [0057]).
With respect to Claim 2, Tomer discloses the control device of Claim 1, wherein the processor (processor; [0126-131]) is configured to adjust the light sheet (illumination sheet beams 353, 354, 362, 366; [0057-59]) velocity relative to the microscope (LSTM system 300; fig. 10; [0057-59]) to be different from the sample volume velocity relative to the microscope in at least one of a direction (illuminated linear volumes 219a and 219b captured at laterally different positions; [0057-59]; fig. 5b-10), and an absolute value (imaging speed can be further increased by simultaneously imaging the sample from opposed detection arms on respective opposite faces of the sample; [0045] & phase difference; [0057] & positions of the illuminated linear volumes 219 such as surface variations and variations in index of refraction; [0058]).
With respect to Claim 3, Tomer discloses the control device of Claim 1, wherein the processor (processor; [0126-131]) is configured to adjust a scan velocity of the light sheet (illumination sheet beams 353, 354, 362, 366; [0057-59]) to be constant by adjusting one of the light sheet velocity and the sample volume velocity (illuminated linear volumes 219 & sample 336; [0057-59]), and wherein the scan velocity is a velocity of the light sheet relative to the sample volume (controller positions 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 and at each position (progressive and continuous or discrete) the exposed pixel line 204 is sampled thereby selecting a then-current line image of the illuminated linear volume 219, and the selection of image data of the camera, storage, and sampling as well as compositing may be performed automatically by the controller 410; [0059] & [0045]; as seen in fig. 7a-7e).
With respect to Claim 4, Tomer discloses the control device of Claim 1, wherein the processor (processor; [0126-131]) is configured to decrease the light sheet (illumination sheet beams 353, 354, 362, 366; [0057-59]) velocity when the sample volume (illuminated linear volumes 219 & sample 336; [0057-59]) velocity is increased, and/or increase the light sheet velocity when the sample volume velocity is decreased (inverse relationship where θ is the angle between the illumination propagation direction and the detection axis, as seen in fig. 12a & 12c of fig. 10; [0075-76]).
With respect to Claim 7, Tomer discloses the control device of Claim 1, wherein the processor (processor; [0126-131]) is configured to adjust the sample volume (illuminated linear volumes 219 & sample 336; [0057-59]) velocity based on a position of the light sheet (illumination sheet beams 353, 354, 362, 366; [0057-59]) in an adjustment range (adjusting positions; [0059]; fig. 7a-7e).
With respect to Claim 8, Tomer discloses the control device of Claim 7, wherein the processor (processor; [0126-131]) is configured to adjust the sample volume (illuminated linear volumes 219 & sample 336; [0057-59]) velocity such that the first direction is the same as the second direction (illumination light sheets from the same side of the sample as the detection objective; [0035], e.g., direction of sheet beam 366 same of linear volume 219b in fig. 6; [0057]) if the light sheet (illumination sheet beams 353, 354, 362, 366; [0057-59]) is located in a predetermined region at limits of the adjustment range (fixed position; [0059] limits of range shown in fig. 7a-7e).
With respect to Claim 9, Tomer discloses the control device of Claim 1, wherein the processor (processor; [0126-131]) is configured to change an orientation of the first direction with respect to the second direction (fig. 6 & 7a-7e) from a parallel orientation to an antiparallel orientation and/or from an antiparallel orientation to a parallel orientation (parallel and antiparallel orientation and changing at laterally different positions as seen in fig. 6 & 7a-7e; [0018] & [0057-59]).
With respect to Claim 10, Tomer discloses the control device of Claim 1, wherein the processor (processor; [0126-131]) is configured to adjust an acceleration of the light sheet (illumination sheet beams 353, 354, 362, 366; [0057-59]) based on an acceleration of the sample volume (controller 410 performs function that automatically performs a calibration by sparsely automatically sampling of the imaging planes at multiple positions in the sample & traversal itinerary employs adaptive correction of the detected parameters and interpolation of the parameters from the sparse intervals, the adaptive optics correct light sheet characteristics, and thus, can adjust acceleration of light sheet based on other parameters and samples volumes; [0058]; fig. 7a-7e).
With respect to Claim 11, Tomer discloses the control device of Claim 1, wherein the processor (processor; [0126-131]) is configured to measure or determine at least one of the sample volume velocity, the light sheet velocity, and the scan velocity (detection mode; [0057]; fig. 6 & 7a-7e; LSTM system controlled to perform sparse traversal of large sample in order to extract parameters that affect the positions of volumes & traversal itinerary employs adaptive correction of the detected parameters and interpolation of the parameters from the sparse intervals, and thus, determining velocities; [0058]).
With respect to Claim 12, Tomer discloses the control device of Claim 1, wherein the processor (processor; [0126-131]) is configured to move the light sheet (illumination sheet beams 353, 354, 362, 366; [0057-59]) in a direction perpendicular to the light sheet (perpendicular direction and moving from laterally different positions; [0018]; fig. 6 & 7a-7e; [0057-59] & [0069]).
With respect to Claim 13, Tomer discloses the control device of Claim 7, wherein the processor (processor; [0126-131]) is configured to adjust one of the light sheet (illumination sheet beams 353, 354, 362, 366; [0057-59]) velocity and the sample volume (illuminated linear volumes 219 & sample 336; [0057-59]) velocity to position the light sheet in a center of the adjustment range (center of adjustment range as seen in fig. 7a-7e; optically aligning the LSTM system wherein light sheet positioning parameters optimized such that the thinnest part is aligned with the center of the field-of-view of the detection plane; [0070]).
With respect to Claim 14, Tomer discloses a light sheet microscope (LSTM [light sheet theta microscopy]/microscope system 300; fig. 10; [0057-59] & [0063-70]), comprising:
a light sheet generator (illumination optical arms 500; fig. 10; [0063-66]) configured to generate a light sheet in a sample volume of the light sheet microscope (light sheets are generated by arms 500; [0065]);
an optical system (illumination objective 530; [0063-71]) configured to transmit light of the light sheet into the sample volume (utilized in rapid translation of light sheets; [0065-69]);
a light sheet actuator (galvo scanner 514; [0063-69]) configured to adjust a light sheet velocity (optimal galvo scanner parameters utilized and adjusted as seen in fig. 10 for achieving uniform planar illumination; [0069-70]);
a sample actuator (traversing system 406 & electrical tunable lens 508; [0059-63]) configured to adjust a sample volume velocity of the sample volume ([0057-59]);
a detection unit (sCMOS camera 558; [0066]) configured to detect a light distribution in the sample volume (utilized for detection; [0060-66]), the light distribution being generated by the light sheet (emitted signals; [0057]; fig. 6 & 7a-7e); and
the control device (controller 410; fig. 8; [0057-59]) of Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 15, Tomer discloses the light sheet microscope of Claim 14, further comprising a velocity detector unit (optical scanning device 320; [0054-59]) configured to determine at least one of the sample volume velocity, the light sheet velocity, and a superposition of the sample volume velocity and the light sheet velocity (optical scanning device 320 utilized for data analysis for capturing dynamic changes/sheets and displacement, tracking parameters of samples, and thus, computing velocity; [0057-59]; fig. 7a-7e).
With respect to Claim 16, Tomer discloses the light sheet microscope of Claim 14, further comprising: a further optical system (fig. 5a & 10) configured to transmit light from the sample volume ([0063-75]) to the detection unit (sCMOS camera 558; [0066]), wherein the light sheet actuator (galvo scanner 514; [0063-69]) is configured to translate the light sheet in a direction parallel to an optical axis of the further optical system (as seen in fig. 5a & 10; [0063-75]).
With respect to Claim 17, Tomer discloses a method for controlling a microscope the microscope being a light sheet microscope (LSTM [light sheet theta microscopy]/microscope system 300; fig. 10; [0057-59] & [0063-70]), the method comprising:
adjusting, via a sample actuator of the microscope (traversing system 406 & electrical tunable lens 508; [0059-63]), a sample volume velocity of a sample volume of the microscope (illuminated linear volumes 219 & sample 336; [0057-59]), wherein the sample volume ([0057-59]) velocity is in a first direction (as seen in fig. 7a-7e); and
adjusting, via a light sheet actuator of the microscope (galvo scanner 514; [0063-69]), a light sheet (illumination sheet beams 353, 354, 362, 366; [0057-59]) velocity of a light sheet of the microscope based on the sample volume velocity (several methods of adjusting velocity and acquiring three-dimensional imaging of a sample within microscopy; [0098] & [0116-126]; fig. 8), wherein the light sheet (illumination sheet beams 353, 354, 362, 366; [0057-59]) velocity is in a second direction (as seen in fig. 7a-7e),
wherein the adjusting the sample volume (illuminated linear volumes 219 & sample 336; [0057-59]) velocity is performed (traversal itinerary employing adaptive correction of detected parameters and interpolation from sparse intervals of samples; [0058]) such that the first direction is opposite to the second direction (opposite direction; [0019], e.g., direction of sheet beam 366 opposite of linear volume 219a at laterally different positions in fig. 6; [0057]), or the first direction is same as the second direction (illumination light sheets from the same side of the sample as the detection objective; [0035], e.g., direction of sheet beam 366 same of linear volume 219b in fig. 6; [0057]).
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 ([0126]), the processor-executable instructions, 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 (controller 410; fig. 8; [0058-59]), the microscope being a light sheet microscope (LSTM [light sheet theta microscopy]/microscope system 300; fig. 10; [0057-59] & [0063-70]), the method comprising:
adjusting, via a sample actuator of the microscope (traversing system 406 & electrical tunable lens 508; [0059-63]), a sample volume velocity of a sample volume (through three-dimensional imaging methods of the microscope [0116-0126]), wherein the sample volume (illuminated linear volumes 219 & sample 336; [0057-59]) velocity is in a first direction (as seen in fig. 7a-7e); and
adjusting, via a light sheet actuator of the microscope (galvo scanner 514; [0063-69]), a light sheet (illumination sheet beams 353, 354, 362, 366; [0057-59]) velocity of a light sheet of the microscope based on the sample volume velocity (through three-dimensional imaging methods; [0116-0126]), wherein the light sheet (illumination sheet beams 353, 354, 362, 366; [0057-59]) velocity is in a second direction (as seen in fig. 7a-7e),
wherein the adjusting the sample volume (illuminated linear volumes 219 & sample 336; [0057-59]) velocity is performed (traversal itinerary employing adaptive correction of detected parameters and interpolation from sparse intervals of samples; [0058]) such that the first direction is opposite to the second direction (opposite direction; [0019], e.g., direction of sheet beam 366 opposite of linear volume 219a at laterally different positions in fig. 6; [0057]), or the first direction is same as the second direction (illumination light sheets from the same side of the sample as the detection objective; [0035], e.g., direction of sheet beam 366 same of linear volume 219b in fig. 6; [0057]).
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 19, Tomer discloses the control device of Claim 1, wherein the microscope (LSTM [light sheet theta microscopy]/microscope system 300; fig. 10; [0057-59] & [0063-70]) comprises an oblique plane microscope or a SCAPE microscope (LSTM achieves planar imaging by employing obliquely arranged illumination light sheets; [0035]).
With respect to Claim 20, Tomer discloses microscope of Claim 14, wherein the light sheet microscope comprises (LSTM [light sheet theta microscopy]/microscope system 300; fig. 10; [0057-59] & [0063-70]) an oblique plane microscope or a SCAPE microscope (LSTM achieves planar imaging by employing obliquely arranged illumination light sheets; [0035]).
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 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 30 April 2025
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Note that at least one claim number with feature is provided. The feature may be in more than the
identified claim number provided.
2 Note that at least one claim number with feature is provided. The feature may be in more than the
identified claim number provided.