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 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that the prior art of Wu is not related to claimed spinning-disk confocal microscopy system. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Wu is used to modify a light guide, which is disclosed in both the claimed invention and the prior art. Wu also discloses that the shaking of the light guide results in uniformity (Wu, Paragraph 336), which would read on the limitation “to further homogenize the light”. The examiner believes it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosure of Wu to modify that of Brooker.
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, 15-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooker (US Publication No.: US 2006/0087727 A1 of record) in view of Wu et al (US Publication No.: US 2013/0094243 A1 of record, “Wu”).
Regarding Claim 1, Brooker discloses a spinning-disk confocal microscopy system (Figures 1-2), comprising:
A light engine including at least one light source, the light engine being configured to produce fluorescence excitation light (Figure 1, light engine 1/12/21; Paragraph 0028);
Confocal optics configured to direct the fluorescence excitation light onto a sample and to collect fluorescence emission light emitted by the sample, wherein the confocal optics simultaneously illuminate and collect light from at least two discrete positions in the sample separated by an unilluminated region (Paragraph 0027 discloses multiple positions within the confocal optics; Figure 1, confocal optics 9/10);
A detector configured to capture fluorescence emission light from the sample to form an image of the sample (Figure 1, detector 6; Paragraph 0028); and
A liquid light guide that transmits fluorescence excitation light output form the light engine to the confocal optics (Figure 1, liquid light guide 1; Paragraph 0027).
Brooker fails to disclose a shaker configured to shake the liquid light guide to further homogenize the light.
However, Wu discloses a similar system comprising a shaker configured to shake the liquid light guide to further homogenize the light (Wu, Paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the liquid light guide as disclosed by Brooker to include a shaker as disclosed by Wu. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of increasing flowing speed and uniformity (Wu, Paragraph 0036).
Regarding Claim 15, Brooker in view of Wu discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the confocal optics include a Nipkow pinhole disk (Brooker, Paragraph 0006; Paragraph 0027).
Regarding Claim 16, Brooker in view of Wu discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the confocal optics further include a lens disk (Brooker, Paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 17, Brooker in view of Wu discloses the system of claim 15, wherein an intensity of excitation light incident on the Nipkow pinhole disk is substantially uniform over at least a portion of the Nipkow pinhole disk illuminated by the excitation light (Brooker, Paragraph 0006; Paragraphs 0027-0028).
Regarding Claim 19, Brooker in view of Wu discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the detector includes an imaging detector (Brooker, Paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 20, Brooker in view of Wu discloses a method of performing confocal microscopy, comprising (a) providing a sample, and (b) imaging the sample using the system of claim 1 (Brooker, Paragraphs 0006-0007; Paragraph 0010; Paragraphs 0027-0028).
Claims 4-5, 11-14, 18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooker in view of Wu in further view of Lin et al (US Publication No.: US 2021/0087548 A1 of record, “Lin”).
Regarding Claim 4, Brooker in view of Wu discloses the system of claim 1.
Brooker fails to disclose that a core diameter of the liquid light guide is greater than 1mm.
However, Lin discloses a similar system where a core diameter of the liquid light guide is greater than 1mm (Lin, Paragraph 0096 discloses a 3mm core).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the liquid light guide as disclosed by Brooker to have a particular core diameter as disclosed by Lin. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing microscopy of live stable cells (Lin, Paragraph 0096).
Regarding Claim 5, Brooker in view of Wu in view of Lin discloses the system of claim 4.
Brooker fails to disclose that the core diameter of the liquid light guide is 2mm.
However, Lin discloses a similar system where the core diameter of the liquid light guide is 2mm (Lin, Paragraph 0096 discloses a 3mm core).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the liquid light guide as disclosed by Brooker to have a particular core diameter as disclosed by Lin. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing microscopy of live stable cells (Lin, Paragraph 0096).
Regarding Claim 11, Brooker in view of Wu discloses the system of claim 1.
Brooker fails to disclose that the light engine includes at least two lasers.
However, Lin discloses a similar system where the light engine includes at least two lasers (Lin, Paragraph 0097 discloses a green/yellow laser and a red laser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light engine as disclosed by Brooker to include lasers as disclosed by Lin. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing microscopy of live stable cells (Lin, Paragraph 0097).
Regarding Claim 12, Brooker in view of Wu and Lin discloses the system of claim 11.
Brooker fails to disclose that each laser emits light at a different wavelength or range of wavelengths.
However, Lin discloses a similar system where each laser emits light at a different wavelength or range of wavelengths (Lin, Paragraph 0097).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light engine as disclosed by Brooker to include lasers as disclosed by Lin. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing microscopy of live stable cells (Lin, Paragraph 0097).
Regarding Claim 13, Brooker in view of Wu and Lin discloses the system of claim 11.
Brooker fails to disclose that the intensity of light from each of the at least two lasers is independently adjustable.
However, Lin discloses a similar system where the intensity of light from each of the at least two lasers is independently adjustable (Lin, Paragraph 0097; Paragraph 0103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light engine as disclosed by Brooker to include lasers as disclosed by Lin. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing microscopy of live stable cells (Lin, Paragraph 0097).
Regarding Claim 14, Brooker in view of Wu discloses the system of claim 1.
Brooker fails to disclose that the light engine has at least two light sources, wherein light from each light source is combined along a same optical path.
However, Lin discloses a similar system where the light engine has at least two light sources, wherein light from each light source is combined along a same optical path (Lin, Paragraphs 0097-0098).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light engine as disclosed by Brooker to include multiple light sources as disclosed by Lin. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing microscopy of live stable cells (Lin, Paragraph 0097).
Regarding Claim 18, Brooker in view of Wu discloses the system of claim 1.
Brooker fails to disclose that the confocal optics are Yokogawa optics.
However, Lin discloses a similar system where the confocal optics are Yokogawa optics (Lin, Paragraph 0097).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light engine as disclosed by Brooker to include multiple light sources as disclosed by Lin. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing microscopy of live stable cells (Lin, Paragraph 0097).
Regarding Claim 21, Brooker in view of Wu and Lin discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the combined light is directed onto the liquid light guide (Brooker, Figure 1; Paragraph 0027).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooker in view of Wu in further view of Yaroslavsky et al (US Publication No.: US 2005/0094147 A1 of record, “Yaroslavsky”).
Regarding Claim 9, Brooker in view of Wu discloses the system of claim 1.
Brooker fails to disclose converging lenses positioned immediately upstream and downstream of the liquid light guide, wherein the upstream lens shapes the incoming light to match an acceptance angle of the liquid light guide, and the downstream lens shapes the outgoing light for entry into the confocal optics.
However, Yaroslavsky discloses a similar system comprising converging lenses positioned immediately upstream and downstream of the liquid light guide, wherein the upstream lens shapes the incoming light to match an acceptance angle of the liquid light guide, and the downstream lens shapes the outgoing light for entry into the confocal optics (Yaroslavsky, Figure 1, converging lenses 3, 5, liquid light guide 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Brooker to include converging lenses as disclosed by Yaroslavsky. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing wavelength selection and scanning (Yaroslavsky, Paragraph 0052).
Regarding Claim 10, Brooker in view of Wu and Yaroslavsky discloses the system of claim 9.
Brooker fails to disclose that the diameter of the converging lenses is greater than a core diameter of the liquid light guide.
However, Yaroslavsky discloses a similar system where the diameter of the converging lenses is greater than a core diameter of the liquid light guide (Yaroslavsky, Figure 1, the converging lenses 3/5 are proportionally greater in diameter than the slits (core diameter) disclosed in the liquid light guide 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Brooker to include converging lenses as disclosed by Yaroslavsky. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing wavelength selection and scanning (Yaroslavsky, Paragraph 0052).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooker in view of Wu in further view of Sunar et al (US Publication No.: US 2017/0224205 A1 of record, “Sunar”).
Regarding Claim 22, Brooker in view of Wu discloses the system of claim 1.
Brooker fails to disclose a controller that controls the wavelengths and/or duration of light emitted by the light engine.
However, Sunar discloses a similar system comprising a controller that controls the wavelengths and/or duration of light emitted by the light engine (Sunar, Paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Brooker to include a controller as disclosed by Sunar. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of obtaining high resolution during imaging (Sunar, Paragraph 0032).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871