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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1. 114.Applicant’s submission filed on 09/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 09/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-21 are pending in this application.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-21 have been amended. Claims 2, and 8 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.103(a) are summarized as follows:
1.Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2.Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3.Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4.Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Joseph Rosen (US 20170329280 A1) (hereinafter Rosen) in view of Gary Brooker (US 20220163918 A1) (hereinafter Brooker):
Regarding Claim 1, Rosen teaches a microscopy system ([0009] teaches microscope) comprising:
a source of radiation comprising a sample that is configured to emit incoherent radiationrandom and uncorrelated (i) frequency, (ii) phase, (iii) amplitude, and (iv) a Poynting vector ([0005] teaches a source of radiation being a sample that emits incoherent radiation, incoherent light has random properties), the Poynting vector having a direction indicative of a direction of propagation of the incoherent radiation ([0009] teaches the SLM receiving the emitted light. Note, the incoherent light has a Poynting vector, the Poynting vector has a direction);
a spatial light modulator (SLM) disposed along the direction of the Poynting vector ([0009] teaches an SLM along the direction of the light emitted), the SLM configured to (i) superimpose a plurality of lenses with different focal lengths ([0008], [0013] teaches the SLM superimpose with two lenses with different focal lengths), (ii) split the incoherent radiation into at least two incoherent beams with different phase based on a polarization state of the incoherent radiation ([0005], [0061] the incoherent beam is split into two and changing the phase of one of the beams), and (iii) modulate a phase of the at least two incoherent beams differently ([0061] the SLM moulage the phase of the beams);
a detector module disposed along the direction of the Poynting vector, the detector module configured to detect, at a detector plane of the detector module, the at least two incoherent beams ([0008]- [0009] teaches a camera that captures the incoherent beams), the detector module further configured to generate a signal indicative of an interference pattern of the at least two incoherent beams ([0009], and [0024] teaches the camera generating the holograms using the interference pattern of the incoherent beams).
Rosen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Brooker teaches, encoding 3D information of the sample from the at least two incoherent beams ([0027] teaches the encoding of the 3d information, note: the 3d information is the interference of the beams); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the detector module ([0027] teaches the processor coupled to the detector), the processor configured to receive the signal indicative of the interference pattern and to generate a holographic image from the signal ([0044] teaches sending the interference pattern to the computing system and generating the holographic image).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen to add the processing of 3 dimensional information to form the hologram as disclosed by Brooker to improve the hologram quality (Brooker [0056]).
Regarding Claim 3, Rosen in view of Brooker teach the microscopy system according to claim 1. Brooker further teaches, wherein the source of radiation emits the incoherent radiation at more than one wavelength ([0085]- [0090], and [0023] teaches the radiation at more than one wavelength).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen to add the processing of 3 dimensional information to form the hologram as disclosed by Brooker to improve the hologram quality (Brooker [0056]).
Regarding Claim 7, Rosen in view of Brooker teach the microscopy system according to claim 1. Rosen further teaches wherein to generate a holographic image, the processor is further configured to: determine, from the signal indicative of the interference pattern, a complex amplitude of the interference pattern of the at least two incoherent beams ([0024] teaches determining the complex amplitude of the interference pattern of the incoherent beams);
reconstruct three-dimensional information from the complex amplitude of the interference pattern ([0005], and [0024]- [0030] teaches reconstructing the 3D information from the complex amplitude).
Rosen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Brooker teaches, generate a holographic image from the three-dimensional information ([0044] teaches sending the interference pattern to the computing system and generating the holographic image).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen to add the processing of 3 dimensional information to form the hologram as disclosed by Brooker to improve the hologram quality (Brooker [0056]).
Regarding Claim 18, Rosen in view of Brooker teach the microscopy system according to claim 1. Rosen further teaches wherein the SLM is configured to modulate the at least two incoherent beams according to two diffractive lenses superimposed on an active area of the SLM ([0008], and [0013] teaches the modulate the incoherent beam based on the diffractive lenses that are superimposed on the SLM).
Regarding Claim 20, Rosen teaches a method for performing holographic microscopy ([0005] teaches method for performing holography) the method comprising:
providing, to a spatial light modulator (SLM), incoherent radiation emitted by a sample, the incoherent radiation having random and uncorrelated (i) frequency, (ii) phase, (iii) amplitude, and (iv) a Poynting vector ([0005] teaches a source of radiation being a sample that emits incoherent radiation, incoherent light has random properties);
superimposing, by the SLM, a plurality of lenses with different focal lengths ([0008]- [0009], and [0013] teaches an SLM along the direction of the light emitted, the SLM superimpose with two lenses with different focal lengths);
splitting, by the SLM, the incoherent radiation into at least two incoherent beams with different phase based on a polarization state of the incoherent radiation;( [0005], [0061] the incoherent beam is split into two and changing the phase of one of the beams),
modulating, by the SLM, the phase of the at least two incoherent beams differently ([0061] the SLM moulage the phase of the beams);
detecting, at a detection plane of a detector module, the at least two incoherent beams ([0008]- [0009] teaches a camera that captures the incoherent beams);
generating, by the detector module, a signal indicative of an interference pattern of the at least two incoherent beams ([0009], and [0024] teaches the camera generating the holograms using the interference pattern of the incoherent beams).
Rosen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Brooker teaches, encoding 3D information of the sample from the at least two incoherent beams ([0027] teaches the encoding of the 3d information, note: the 3d information is the interference of the beams); and
generating, by a processor, a holographic image from the signal indicative of the interference pattern. ([0027], and [0044] teaches sending the interference pattern to the computing system and generating the holographic image).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen to add the processing of 3 dimensional information to form the hologram as disclosed by Brooker to improve the hologram quality (Brooker [0056]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Joseph Rosen (US 20170329280 A1) (hereinafter Rosen) in view of Gary Brooker (US 20220163918 A1) (hereinafter Brooker) further in view of Osamu Matoba (US 20190250104 A1) (hereinafter Matoba):
Regarding Claim 4, Rosen in view of Brooker teach the microscopy system according to claim 3. Rosen further teaches wherein the SLM is configured to superimpose the plurality of lenses … on an active area of the SLM ([0013] teaches multiple lenses that superimposed on the active area of the SLM) … to enable interference to be measured at the detector module ([0008] teaches recording the interference pattern by the camera).
Rosen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Matoba teaches lenses with different focal lengths ([0080] teaches the lens with two focal lengths f1 and f2)
each lens of the plurality of lenses having two focal lengths for each wavelength ([0080] teaches the lens with two focal lengths f1 and f2, each for a different wavelength)
focus each of theplurality of beams at two distinct focal points ([0080], and Fig. 4 teaches focusing the plurality of beam into two points F1 and F2).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen in view of Brooker to further add the multi focal lenses as disclosed by Matoba to improve the signal to noise ratio (Matoba [0024]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Joseph Rosen (US 20170329280 A1) (hereinafter Rosen) in view of Gary Brooker (US 20220163918 A1) (hereinafter Brooker) further in view of Steven T. Charles (US 20210038067 A1) (hereinafter Charles):
Regarding Claim 5, Rosen in view of Brooker teach the microscopy system according to claim 1. Rosen further teaches wherein the SLM is further configured to modulate the phase of the at least two incoherent beams ([0005], [0061] the incoherent beam is split into two and changing the phase of one of the beams).
Rosen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Charles teaches SLM to correct for aberrations and phase distortions of the at least two incoherent beams due to optical elements ([0026] teaches SLM utilized to correct the aberration and phase distortion).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen in view of Brooker to further add the SLM correction of aberrations and distortions as disclosed by Charles to improve the image resolution (Charles [0035]).
Claims 6, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Joseph Rosen (US 20170329280 A1) (hereinafter Rosen) in view of Gary Brooker (US 20220163918 A1) (hereinafter Brooker) further in view of Mark R Ayres (US 20100020669 A1) (hereinafter Ayres):
Regarding Claim 6, Rosen in view of Brooker teach the microscopy system according to claim 1. Rosen further teaches wherein tosplit the incoherent radiation into at least two incoherent beams ([0005], [0061] the incoherent beam is split into two and changing the phase of one of the beams),
Rosen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Ayres teaches the SLM ([0118] teaches the SLM) is configured to:
modulate the incoherent radiation to form a time-series of four beam pairs, wherein each beam pair of the time-series of four beam pairs includes two spatiotemporally overlapped beams ([0130] teaches modulating the beams with a 90 degree phase shift as a time series) , with a first beam pair having a phase offset of 0° ([0070] teaches the first beam is not phase shifted), a second beam pair having a phase offset of 90°([0130] teaches applying a 90 degree shift on the beam), a third beam pair having a phase offset of 180° ([0071] teaches a 180 degree phase shift of the beam), and a fourth beam pair having a phase offset of 270° (Fig. 1, and [0107] teaches a 90 degree phase shift of the beam to create a 270 degree shift).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen in view of Brooker to further add the phase offset of the beams as disclosed by Ayres to improve the signal level of the detected hologram (Ayres [0009]).
Regarding Claim 21, Rosen in view of Brooker teach the microscopy system according to claim 1, Rosen further teaches the at least two incoherent beams ([0005], [0061] teaches the two incoherent beams),
Rosen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Ayres teaches comprises two beams having a phase offset from each other of 0°, 90°,180°, or 270° ([0130], and [0081] teach the beam with offsets of 90 degrees from each other).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen in view of Brooker to further add the phase offset of the beams as disclosed by Ayres to improve the signal level of the detected hologram (Ayres [0009]).
Claims 9-12, 15- 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Joseph Rosen (US 20170329280 A1) (hereinafter Rosen) in view of Gary Brooker (US 20220163918 A1) (hereinafter Brooker) further Robert E Betzig (US 20150362713 A1) (hereinafter Betzig):
Regarding Claim 9, Rosen in view of Brooker teach the microscopy system according to claim 1, however, does not explicitly teach a first magnification element disposed before the SLM along the direction of the Poynting vector, the first magnification element configured to magnify the incoherent radiation according to an active area of the SLM.
However, in an analogous art, Betzig teaches a first magnification element disposed before the SLM along the direction of the Poynting vector, the first magnification element configured to magnify the incoherent radiation according to an active area of the SLM ([0063], [0168], Fig. 1A and Fig. 23 teaches the magnification lenses placed before the SLM and along the direction, the magnification elements adjust the radiation for the SLM).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen in view of Brooker to further add the magnification elements as disclosed by Betzig to improve the quality of imaging (Betzig [0138]).
Regarding Claim 10, Rosen in view of Brooker and Betzig teach the microscopy system according to claim 9. Rosen further teaches wherein the first magnification element comprises an afocal configuration of two lenses. ([0052] teaches the magnification elements as a 4f afocal lens system with 2 lenses)
Regarding Claim11, Rosen in view of Brooker teach the microscopy system according to claim 1, however, does not explicitly teach a second magnification element disposed after the SLM along the direction of the Poynting vector, the second magnification element configured to magnify the at least two incoherent beams according to a detection area of the detector module.
However, in an analogous art, Betzig teaches a second magnification element disposed after the SLM along the direction of the Poynting vector, the second magnification element configured to magnify the at least two incoherent beams according to a detection area of the detector module ([0063], [0168], Fig. 1A and Fig. 23 teaches the magnification lenses placed after the SLM and along the direction, the magnification elements adjust the radiation for the detector).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen in view of Brooker to further add the magnification elements as disclosed by Betzig to improve the quality of imaging (Betzig [0138]).
Regarding Claim 12, Rosen in view of Brooker and Betzig teach the microscopy system according to claim 11. Rosen further teaches wherein the second magnification element comprises an afocal configuration of two lenses. ([0052] teaches the magnification elements as a 4f afocal lens system with 2 lenses).
Regarding Claim15, Rosen in view of Brooker teach the microscopy system according to claim 1, however, does not explicitly teach
microscope objective positioned at a first distance from the sample, the microscope objective configured to collect the incoherent radiation from the sample, the microscope objective further being operatively coupled to the SLM to provide the incoherent radiation to the SLM.
However, in an analogous art, Betzig teaches microscope objective positioned at a first distance from the sample ([0064], and Fig. 1B teaches the objective, the objective is placed a distance from the sample), the microscope objective configured to collect the incoherent radiation from the sample ([0064] the objective collects the incoherent light from the sample), the microscope objective further being operatively coupled to the SLM to provide the incoherent radiation to the SLM ([0064], [0071], and Fig. 1B teaches the objective and the SLM being coupled).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen in view of Brooker to further add the optical elements as disclosed by Betzig to improve the quality of imaging (Betzig [0138]).
Regarding Claim16, Rosen in view of Brooker teach the microscopy system according to claim 1, however, does not explicitly teach an actuator physically coupled to a galvanometric mirror associated with an excitation beam, the actuator configured to alter the distance between thegalvanometric mirror and the sample
However, in an analogous art, Betzig teaches an actuator physically coupled to a galvanometric mirror associated with an excitation beam, the actuator configured to alter the distance between thegalvanometric mirror and the sample ([0156]- [0157] teaches a galvanometric mirror that is connected to a motor that adjust the position of the mirror).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen in view of Brooker to further add the optical elements as disclosed by Betzig to improve the quality of imaging (Betzig [0138]).
Regarding Claim 17, Rosen in view of Brooker and Betzig teach the microscopy system according to claim 16. Betzig further teaches the actuator is a galvanometer configured to alter the position of the qalvanometric mirror ([0156]- [0157] teaches a galvanometric mirror that is connected to a motor that adjust the position of the mirror).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen in view of Brooker to further add the optical elements as disclosed by Betzig to improve the quality of imaging (Betzig [0138]).
Regarding Claim19, Rosen in view of Brooker teach the microscopy system according to claim 1, however, does not explicitly teach the source of radiation receives radiation from a light sheet microscope
However, in an analogous art, Betzig teaches the source of radiation receives radiation from a light sheet microscope ([0103] teaches the source of radiation as a light sheet microscope).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen in view of Brooker to further add the radiation source as disclosed by Betzig to improve the quality of imaging (Betzig [0138]).
Claims 13- 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Joseph Rosen (US 20170329280 A1) (hereinafter Rosen) in view of Gary Brooker (US 20220163918 A1) (hereinafter Brooker) further Lynford Goddard (US 20160118265 A1) (hereinafter Goddard):
Regarding Claim 13, Rosen in view of Brooker and Betzig teach the microscopy system according to claim 1, however, does not explicitly teach a wavelength filter disposed along the direction of the Poynting vector, the wavelength filter configured to filter the incoherent radiation to attenuate a band of wavelengths of the incoherent radiation.
However, in an analogous art, Goddard teaches a wavelength filter disposed along the direction of the Poynting vector, the wavelength filter configured to filter the incoherent radiation to attenuate a band of wavelengths of the incoherent radiation ([0095], [0099] teaches a tunable wavelength filter that attenuate the band of wavelengths).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen in view of Brooker to further add the wavelength filter as disclosed by Goddard to improve the optical resolution. (Goddard [0099]).
Regarding Claim 14, Rosen in view of Brooker and Goddard teach the microscopy system according to claim 13. Goddard further teaches wherein the wavelength filter comprises a multi-wavelength bandpass filter configured to filter radiation at a plurality of center wavelengths ([0099] teaches a tunable wavelength filter with multiple bandpass filter)
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hologram based on incoherent light as disclosed by Rosen in view of Brooker to further add the wavelength filter as disclosed by Goddard to improve the optical resolution. (Goddard [0099]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD KAMAL ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (703)756-1694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
/MAHMOUD KAMAL ABOUZAHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2486
/JAMIE J ATALA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486