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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 05/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-25 are pending in this application.
Claims 1 and 20 have been amended. Claims 2, 8 and 19 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive/moot.
First Argument (pages 9- 11) under Remarks
While Rosen does mention a generalization where two diffractive lenses with different focal lengths could be used, Rosen explicitly notes this configuration could result in reduced efficiency from both lenses because only half of the SLM pixels are available for each lens. See id., para. [0041]. Rosen's preferred solution is therefore to add a separate physical glass lens adjacent to the SLM rather than having the SLM itself superimpose two lens patterns. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to arrive at the SLM recited in element (i) of claim 1 by reading Rosen because Rosen teaches away from this configuration. Thus, Rosen fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least the above- recited element (i) of claim 1.
…
Rosen teaches away from the dual-lens SLM configuration recited in claim 1, describing it as "[t]he older, and less efficient, method" and stating that "displaying two different diffractive lenses on randomly distributed pixels of the same SLM could result in reduced efficiency from both lenses" such that "a glass spherical lens should be added to the system" instead. Rosen, paras. [0024], [0041]. See M.P.E.P. § 2145(X)(D).
Reply: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant asserts that Rosen teaches away from using multiple diffraction lenses. The applicant asserts that Rosen [0024] discloses that the dual-lens SLM configuration is an older, and less efficient method. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rosen [0024] teaches the older and less effective method is directed towards dividing the pixels on a single SLM screen to display a constant mask and one diffractive lens rather than using the dual-lens SLM configuration.
The applicant further asserts that Rosen [0041] teaches away from the dual-lens SLM configuration and that Rosen teaches that “this configuration could result in reduced efficiency from both lenses because only half of the SLM pixels are available for each lens.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rosen [0041] states that the two different diffractive lenses configuration could result in reduced efficiency from both lenses; however, Rosen stating a possible drawback that could or could not occur is not teaching away. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Second Argument (page 11) under Remarks
Moreover, modifying Rosen's system to operate as an add-on detection arm to a light sheet microscope would render Rosen unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of achieving super-resolution, which requires a precise SLM-to-camera distance of 1380 mm and an optimal z-ratio of zh/fd=2. See Rosen, paras. [0027], [0042]. See M.P.E.P. § 2143.01(V).
Reply: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant asserts that Rosen requires a precise SLM-to-camera distance of 1380 mm and an optimal z-ratio of zh/fd=2. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Rosen teaches the camera distance of 1380 mm as an experimentally selected value, and not a design requirement. Rosen states that the camera is moved away from the SLM until the zh position of 1380 mm to resolve the smallest features in the USAF pattern [0042]. The distance is selected to accommodate the pixel resolution of the particular camera used in the experiment. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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, 3-4, 7, 18, 20, 22, and 24- 25 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) in view of Pablo Loza Alvarez (US 20150022881 A1) (hereinafter Alvarez) in view of Gary Brooker (US 20170052508 A1) (hereinafter Gary):
Regarding Claim 1, Rosen teaches a microscopy system (microscopy system [0009]) comprising:
(b) a Fresnel incoherent correlation holography (FlNCH)-based detection arm physically coupled to the objective of the LS base instrument (a FINCH based detection arm physically coupled to the objective [0042]; [0044]), the detection arm comprising:
a spatial light modulator (SLM) disposed along the direction of the Poynting vector (a spatial light modulator disposed along the direction of the Poynting vector [0005]; [0042]), the SLM configured to … (iii) modulate a phase of the at least two incoherent beams differently (modulating the phase of the at least two incoherent beams differently [0024]- [0025]; [0061]),
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 (a camera that captures the incoherent beams [0008]- [0009]; [0039]; [0044]), the detector module further configured to generate a signal indicative of an interference pattern of the at least two incoherent beams (the camera generating the holograms using the interference pattern of the incoherent beams [0005]; [0009]; [0024]), and
wherein the FlNCH-based detection arm is configured as an add-on unit adaptable to the objective of the LS base instrument without modification to the illumination source or the sample stage (FINCH based detection arm configured as an add on unit adaptable to the objective without modification to the illumination source or the sample stage [0044]).
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 a 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]).
Brooker does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Alvarez teaches (a) a light sheet microscope (LS) base instrument (light sheet microscope base instrument [0027]) comprising:
an illumination source configured to generate a light sheet to excite a sample (an illumination source configured to generate a light sheet to excite a sample [0028]), a sample stage for positioning the sample in the light sheet (sample stage for positioning the sample in the light sheet [0030]; [0061]), and
an objective configured to collect incoherent radiation emitted from the sample along an emission path, the incoherent radiation having random and uncorrelated frequency, phase, amplitude, and a Poynting vector, defining a direction of propagation (an objective configured to collect incoherent radiation emitted from the sample along an emission path with a defined direction of propagation [0030]; [0062]);
wherein the system enables holographic volume reconstruction from fewer position displacements than the LS base instrument operating without the FINCH-based detection arm (enables the holographic volume reconstruction from fewer position displacements than the LS base instrument operation without the FINCH based detection arm [0016]; [0070]).
It would have been obvious to a person who has 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 teachings of Alvarez as disclosed above to simplify the alignment process (Alvarez [0066]).
Alvarez does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Gary teaches the SLM configured to (i) superimpose a plurality of lenses with different focal lengths (the SLM configured to superimpose a plurality of lenses with different focal lengths [0024]), (ii) split the incoherent radiation into at least two incoherent beams with different phase based on a polarization state of the incoherent radiation (the SLM configured to split the incoherent radiation into at least two incoherent beams with different phase based on a polarization state [0031]; [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a 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 and Alvarez to further add the teachings of Gary as disclosed above to improve imaging quality of incoherent holograms (Gary [0045]).
Regarding Claim 3, Rosen in view of Brooker, Alvarez, and Gary 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 (the radiation at more than one wavelength [0085]- [0090]; [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a 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 4, Rosen in view of Brooker, Alvarez, and Gary teach the microscopy system according to claim 3. Alvarez further teaches wherein the SLM is configured to superimpose the plurality of lenses with different focal lengths on an active area of the SLM (the SLM is configured to superimpose the plurality of lenses with different focal lengths [0024]), each lens of the plurality of lenses having two focal lengths for each wavelength (each lens having two focal lengths for each wavelength [0031]; [0041]) to enable interference to be measured at the detector module (enabling interference to be measured at the detector module [0036]), to focus each of the plurality of beams at two distinct focal points (focusing each of the plurality of beams at two distinct focal points [0032]).
Regarding Claim 7, Rosen in view of Brooker, Alvarez, and Gary 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 (determining the complex amplitude of the interference pattern of the incoherent beams [0024]);
reconstruct three-dimensional information from the complex amplitude of the interference pattern (teaches reconstructing the 3D information from the complex amplitude [0005]; [0024]- [0030]).
Rosen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Brooker teaches, generate a holographic image from the three-dimensional information (sending the interference pattern to the computing system and generating the holographic image [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a 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, Alvarez, and Gary 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 (the modulation of the incoherent beam based on the diffractive lenses that are superimposed on the SLM [0008]; [0013]).
Regarding Claim 20, Rosen teaches a method for performing holographic microscopy ([0005] teaches method for performing holography) the method comprising:
coupling a FlNCH-based detection arm to the objective, the detection arm comprising a spatial light modulator (SLM) and a detector module having a detector area (coupling a FINCH detection arm that comprises an SLM and a camera having a defined detector area to the object [0042]; [0044]),
directing the incoherent emission radiation from the objective into the FlNCH-based detection arm (directing the emission from the objective to the SLM of the FINCH detection arm);
modulating the phase of the at least two incoherent beams differently (modulating the phase of at least two incoherent beams differently [0024]- [0025]);
detecting, at a detection plane of the detector module, the at least two incoherent beams to generate an interference signal (detecting the interfering beams at the camera to generate an interference signal [0005])
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 interference signal ([0027], and [0044] teaches sending the interference pattern to the computing system and generating the holographic image).
It would have been obvious to a 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]).
Brooker does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Alvarez teaches providing a light sheet microscope (LS) base instrument having an illumination source, a sample stage, and an objective (a light sheet microscope having an illumination source, a sample stage and objective [0027]),
exciting a sample with a light sheet from the illumination source to generate incoherent emission radiation from the sample (exciting the sample with a light sheet to generate fluorescence [0028]; [0030]),
an objective configured to collect incoherent radiation emitted from the sample along an emission path, the incoherent radiation having random and uncorrelated frequency, phase, amplitude, and a Poynting vector, defining a direction of propagation (an objective configured to collect incoherent radiation emitted from the sample along an emission path with a defined direction of propagation [0030]; [0062]);
wherein the system enables holographic volume reconstruction from fewer position displacements than the LS base instrument operating without the FINCH-based detection arm (enables the holographic volume reconstruction from fewer position displacements than the LS base instrument operation without the FINCH based detection arm [0016]; [0070]),
wherein an axial depth of field of the method is determined by the SLM and the detector module independently of a numerical aperture of the LS base instrument (the phase modulating element and detection processing determining an extended depth of field beyond the objective determined native depth of field [0015]; [0030]- [0031]; [0034]) to reduce a number of axial scanning steps (reducing the axial scanning steps [0016]; [0070])
It would have been obvious to a person who has 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 teachings of Alvarez as disclosed above to simplify the alignment process (Alvarez [0066]).
Alvarez does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Gary teaches at the SLM: superimposing a plurality of diffractive lenses with different focal lengths (the SLM configured to superimpose a plurality of lenses with different focal lengths [0024]);
splitting the incoherent radiation into at least two incoherent beams with different phase based on a polarization state of the incoherent radiation (the SLM configured to split the incoherent radiation into at least two incoherent beams with different phase based on a polarization state [0031]; [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a 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 and Alvarez to further add the teachings of Gary as disclosed above to improve imaging quality of incoherent holograms (Gary [00045]).
Regarding Claim 22, Rosen in view of Brooker, Alvarez, and Gary teach the microscopy system according to claim 1. Rosen further teaches wherein the FlNCH-based detection arm provides an increased transverse scanning area as compared to the LS base instrument operating without the FINCH-based detection arm (the FINCH detection arm recoding holograms coincident over the complete field of view [0042]; [0052]).
Regarding Claim 24, Rosen in view of Brooker, Alvarez, and Gary teach the microscopy system according to claim 1. Rosen further teaches wherein the detector module has a detector area (camera having a 2048x2048 pixel detector area [0044]), and wherein the FlNCH-based detection arm enables an extended field of view (the FINCH detection arm recoding the two beams coincident over the complete field of view [0059]).
Rosen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Alvarez teaches an extended imaging depth as compared to the LS base instrument operating without the FINCH-based detection arm (the detection arm element extending the depth of field of the LSM imaging system [0015]- [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a person who has 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 teachings of Alvarez as disclosed above to simplify the alignment process (Alvarez [0066]).
Regarding Claim 25, Rosen in view of Brooker, Alvarez, and Gary teach the microscopy system according to claim 1. Rosen further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
synchronize a phase modulation sequence of two or more phase offsets corresponding to the SLM (software controlled acquisition of three phase shifted holograms for each FINCH image [0045])
Rosen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Alvarez teaches with a scanning position of the light sheet based on a light sheet position signal from the LS base instrument (synchronization unit synchronizing image capture with the displacement of the light sheet [0057]; [0064]); and
reconstruct a three-dimensional volume from interference patterns acquired at a plurality of axial light sheet positions (reconstructing a 3D image from images captured at different Z positions of the light sheet [0057]; [0070]).
It would have been obvious to a person who has 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 teachings of Alvarez as disclosed above to simplify the alignment process (Alvarez [0066]).
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) in view of Pablo Loza Alvarez (US 20150022881 A1) (hereinafter Alvarez) in view of Gary Brooker (US 20170052508 A1) (hereinafter Gary) further in view of Steven T. Charles (US 20210038067 A1) (hereinafter Charles):
Regarding Claim 5, Rosen in view of Brooker, Alvarez, and Gary 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 (the incoherent beam is split into two and changing the phase of one of the beams [0005]; [0061]).
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 (SLM utilized to correct the aberration and phase distortion [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a 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, Alvarez and Gary 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) in view of Pablo Loza Alvarez (US 20150022881 A1) (hereinafter Alvarez) in view of Gary Brooker (US 20170052508 A1) (hereinafter Gary) further in view of Mark R Ayres (US 20100020669 A1) (hereinafter Ayres):
Regarding Claim 6, Rosen in view of Brooker, Alvarez, and Gary teach the microscopy system according to claim 1. Rosen further teaches wherein to(the incoherent beam is split into two and changing the phase of one of the beams [0005]; [0061]),
Rosen does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Ayres teaches the SLM (the SLM [0118]) 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 (modulating the beams with a 90 degree phase shift as a time series [0130]) , with a first beam pair having a phase offset of 0° (the first beam is not phase shifted [0070]), a second beam pair having a phase offset of 90°(applying a 90 degree shift on the beam [0130]), a third beam pair having a phase offset of 180° (a 180 degree phase shift of the beam [0071]), and a fourth beam pair having a phase offset of 270° (a 90 degree phase shift of the beam to create a 270 degree shift [0107]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a 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, Alvarez and Gary 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, Alvarez, and Gary teach the microscopy system according to claim 1, Rosen further teaches the at least two incoherent beams (the two incoherent beams [0005], [0061]),
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 a 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, Alvarez and Gary 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, and 15- 17 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) in view of Pablo Loza Alvarez (US 20150022881 A1) (hereinafter Alvarez) in view of Gary Brooker (US 20170052508 A1) (hereinafter Gary) further Robert E Betzig (US 20150362713 A1) (hereinafter Betzig):
Regarding Claim 9, Rosen in view of Brooker, Alvarez, and Gary teach the microscopy system according to claim 1; however, do 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 (the magnification lenses placed before the SLM and along the direction, the magnification elements adjust the radiation for the SLM [0063], [0168]; Fig. 1A and Fig. 23).
It would have been obvious to a 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, Alvarez and Gary to further add the optical elements as disclosed by Betzig to improve the quality of imaging (Betzig [0138]).
Regarding Claim 10, Rosen in view of Brooker, Alvarez, Gary, 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. (the magnification elements as a 4f afocal lens system with 2 lenses [0052]).
Regarding Claim11, Rosen in view of Brooker, Alvarez, and Gary teach the microscopy system according to claim 1; however, do 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 (the magnification lenses placed after the SLM and along the direction, the magnification elements adjust the radiation for the detector [0063]; [0168]; Fig. 1A and Fig. 23).
It would have been obvious to a 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, Alvarez and Gary to further add the optical elements as disclosed by Betzig to improve the quality of imaging (Betzig [0138]).
Regarding Claim 12, Rosen in view of Brooker, Alvarez, Gary, 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. (the magnification elements as a 4f afocal lens system with 2 lenses [0052]).
Regarding Claim15, Rosen in view of Brooker, Alvarez, and Gary teach the microscopy system according to claim 1; however, do 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 (the objective, the objective is placed a distance from the sample [0064]; Fig. 1B), the microscope objective configured to collect the incoherent radiation from the sample (the objective collects the incoherent light from the sample [0064]), the microscope objective further being operatively coupled to the SLM to provide the incoherent radiation to the SLM (the objective and the SLM being coupled [0064]; [0071]; Fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious to a 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, Alvarez and Gary 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, Alvarez, and Gary teach the microscopy system according to claim 1; however, do not explicitly teach an actuator physically coupled to a galvanometric mirror associated with an excitation beam, the actuator configured to alter the distance between the
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 the(a galvanometric mirror that is connected to a motor that adjust the position of the mirror [0156]- [0157]).
It would have been obvious to a 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, Alvarez and Gary 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, Alvarez, Gary, 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 galvanometric mirror (a galvanometric mirror that is connected to a motor that adjust the position of the mirror [0156]- [0157]).
It would have been obvious to a 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, Alvarez and Gary to further add the optical elements 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) in view of Pablo Loza Alvarez (US 20150022881 A1) (hereinafter Alvarez) in view of Gary Brooker (US 20170052508 A1) (hereinafter Gary) 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, do 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 (a tunable wavelength filter that attenuate the band of wavelengths [0095], [0099]).
It would have been obvious to a 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, Alvarez and Gary 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, Alvarez, Gary, 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 (a tunable wavelength filter with multiple bandpass filter [0099])
It would have been obvious to a 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, Alvarez and Gary to further add the wavelength filter as disclosed by Goddard to improve the optical resolution. (Goddard [0099]).
Claim 23 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) in view of Pablo Loza Alvarez (US 20150022881 A1) (hereinafter Alvarez) in view of Gary Brooker (US 20170052508 A1) (hereinafter Gary) further in view of Gabriel Popescu (US 20140307261 A1) (hereinafter Popescu):
Regarding Claim 23, Rosen in view of Brooker and Betzig teach the microscopy system according to claim 1; however, do not explicitly teach wherein the LS base instrument is synchronized with the SLM to superimpose one or more diffractive lenses for generating the plurality of beams depending on a pulse train timing and a wavelength of radiation provided by the illumination source.
However, in an analogous art, Popescu teaches wherein the LS base instrument is synchronized with the SLM (the microscope synchronized with the SLM through a processor [0037]) to superimpose one or more diffractive lenses for generating the plurality of beams depending on a pulse train timing and a wavelength of radiation provided by the illumination source (applying a different diffractive element function for each wavelength in a timed sequential acquisition [0068]; [0338]).
It would have been obvious to a 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, Alvarez and Gary to further add the teachings of Popescu as disclosed above to improve the speed and stability of imaging. (Popescu [0007]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights