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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-15, 17-20, and 22-23 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/02/2025.
Claim Interpretation
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: “at least one controller configured to control the spatial light modulator” in claim 1.
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
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 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “at least one controller” 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. Claim 1 recites “at least one controller configured to control the spatial light modulator,” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as detailed above. However, the specification fails to provide any structure for such a controller. Rather, the specification merely describes a “galvo controller” in Paragraph [0064] which includes no structure for controlling the spatial light modulator.
At best, the specification provides a “microcontroller” as a portion of a “processor” which appears to be a generic computer element (see e.g. Paragraph [0074]) but does not tie the “microcontroller” to the functions of the claimed “controller configured to control the spatial light modulator.” Even if the claimed “controller” were intended to be such a processor, in cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Moreover, 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 microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241.
As such, even if the structure of the claimed “controller” were a generic computer element, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate since the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38, 86 USPQ2d at 1242 (See MPEP §2181.II.B).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the purposes of examination, any device that has a structure that directs light from the laser to different locations in the sample will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 2-3 and 5-11 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 8 recites “a galvanometric mirror (galvo), wherein the at least one controller is further configured to control, using the galvanometric mirror, such that a constant number of laser pulses from the laser lands on at least some rows of the spatial light modulator.” However, it is unclear how the controller which is defined in claim 1 as “configured to control the spatial light modulator” can “control, using the galvanometric mirror.” It is unclear if the controller is intended to control the spatial light modulator or the galvanometric mirror or both. Moreover, this limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the galvanometric mirror performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material, structure, or element must be present in the galvanometric mirror to perform the function of causing that a constant number of laser pulses from the laser lands at least some rows of the spatial light modulator. Additionally, such a limitation depends not only on the galvanometric mirror but also on the laser and any other optical elements provided in the system. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
Furthermore, no “rows of the spatial light modulator” have been positively required by the claims and it is unclear how such a row should be defined (e.g. vertical rows or pixels, horizontal rows of pixels, or an arbitrary subset of the entire spatial light modulator). Moreover, since the size of the spatial light modulator can be different based on the structure thereof, such a limitation is relative and dependent on the spatial light modulator itself. A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined.
For the purposes of examination, any galvanometric mirror that has a structure which can change a position of light from the laser will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 9-11 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 8 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 10 recites that “the at least one controller is configured to control, using the galvo, the laser to cause one pulse to land on each row of the spatial light modulator.” However, it is unclear how the controller which is defined to control the laser can control the laser “using the galvo.” It is unclear if the galvo is intended to be the controller or if the controller should control multiple elements. Moreover, similar to claim 8 above, this limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the galvanometric mirror performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material, structure, or element must be present in the galvanometric mirror to perform the function of causing that a constant number of laser pulses from the laser lands at least some rows of the spatial light modulator. Additionally, such a limitation depends not only on the galvanometric mirror but also on the laser and any other optical elements provided in the system. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
Furthermore, no “rows of the spatial light modulator” have been positively required by the claims and it is unclear how such a row should be defined (e.g. vertical rows or pixels, horizontal rows of pixels, or an arbitrary subset of the entire spatial light modulator). Moreover, since the size of the spatial light modulator can be different based on the structure thereof, such a limitation is relative and dependent on the spatial light modulator itself. A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined.
For the purposes of examination, any galvanometric mirror that has a structure which can change a position of light from the laser will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 11 recites that “the at least one controller is configured to control the galvo to scan the laser in one dimension, and holographically refocus the laser in a second dimension, using the spatial light modulator.” However, it is unclear how a galvanometric scanner can be configured to “holographically refocus the laser in a second dimension” as such a galvanometric scanner would not provide a holographic structure. It is unclear if the claim is intended for the spatial light modulator to be operated to provide a holographic structure, or if some additional element is intended to be required to “holographically refocus the laser.” Moreover, it is unclear what constitutes a “holographic refocusing” as it is unclear if the claim intends for a hologram to provide a focusing effect, or if the claim intends for a holographic pattern to be focused, etc. Additionally, as no focusing has been provided, it is unclear what constitutes a “refocus.”
For the purposes of examination, any galvanometric scanner that scans a laser in at least one dimension and spatial light modulator with a structure that can provide a hologram will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parot et al. (NPL titled: “Microsecond Timescale Selective Access Two-Photon Targeting for Functional Measurements in Tissue” providing in Proceedings Biophotonics Congress: Biomedical Optics 2020, published 04/20/2020; hereinafter – “Parot”).
Examiner notes that Parot names as authors Vicente Parot, Shane Nichols, Guilherme Testa-Silva, and Adam Cohen while the instant application names Hunter Ozawa, Vicente Parot, Shane Nichols, and Adam Cohen. Thus, the instant application names fewer joint inventors than the publication and it is not readily apparent from the publication that it is an inventor-originated disclosure. See MPEP 2153.01(a).
Regarding claim 1, Parot teaches a device for two-dimensional light steering, comprising:
a spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; 1. Microsecond Selective Access Scanner: “A collimated femtosecond laser was focused by a cylindrical lens onto a diffraction-limited line, reflected on a galvo mirror, and reimaged onto a liquid crystal reflective spatial light modulator (SLM, Meadowlark ODP512)”);
a laser in optical communication with the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; 1. Microsecond Selective Access Scanner: “A collimated femtosecond laser was focused by a cylindrical lens onto a diffraction-limited line, reflected on a galvo mirror, and reimaged onto a liquid crystal reflective spatial light modulator (SLM, Meadowlark ODP512)”); and
at least one controller configured to control the spatial light modulator, wherein the at least one controller is configured to direct a beam of light from the laser onto a sample such that positions along a scan direction (y) of the spatial light modulator map to y- positions on a sample, and angular deflections along an orthogonal direction (x) of the spatial light modulator map to x-positions on a sample (See e.g. Fig. 1; 1. Microsecond Selective Access Scanner: “A collimated femtosecond laser was focused by a cylindrical lens onto a diffraction-limited line, reflected on a galvo mirror, and reimaged onto a liquid crystal reflective spatial light modulator (SLM, Meadowlark ODP512)…To allow efficient 2P excitation, we synchronized the galvo control waveform to the laser oscillator (Amplitude Satsuma, 1030 nm), and calibrated the galvo trajectory so each optical pulse landed on a successive SLM row. This arrangement can direct the full available laser power to selective locations sequentially at microsecond time intervals. To confirm this capability, we configured all rows of the SLM to direct light to the sample, and recorded 2P-excited fluorescence from a dye sample using a PMT (Hamamatsu H11526-20-NF).”).
Regarding claim 2, Parot teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Parot further teaches that the spatial light modulator comprises a liquid crystal on silicon chip (See e.g. Fig. 1; 1. Microsecond Selective Access Scanner: “A collimated femtosecond laser was focused by a cylindrical lens onto a diffraction-limited line, reflected on a galvo mirror, and reimaged onto a liquid crystal reflective spatial light modulator (SLM, Meadowlark ODP512)”).
Regarding claim 5, Parot teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Parot further teaches that the laser is a pulsed laser (See e.g. Fig. 1; 1. Microsecond Selective Access Scanner: “A collimated femtosecond laser was focused by a cylindrical lens onto a diffraction-limited line, reflected on a galvo mirror, and reimaged onto a liquid crystal reflective spatial light modulator (SLM, Meadowlark ODP512)”).
Regarding claim 6, Parot teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Parot further teaches that the laser is a femtosecond pulsed laser (See e.g. Fig. 1; 1. Microsecond Selective Access Scanner: “A collimated femtosecond laser…laser pulse at 500 kHz”).
Regarding claim 7, Parot teaches the device of claim 5, as above.
Parot further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control the pulsed laser to operate at a pulse rate of at least 500 kHz (See e.g. Fig. 1; 1. Microsecond Selective Access Scanner: “A collimated femtosecond laser…laser pulse at 500 kHz”).
Regarding claim 8, Parot teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Parot further teaches a galvanometric mirror (galvo), wherein the at least one controller is further configured to control, using the galvanometric mirror, the laser such that a constant number of laser pulses from the laser lands on at least some rows of the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; 1. Microsecond Selective Access Scanner: “A collimated femtosecond laser was focused by a cylindrical lens onto a diffraction-limited line, reflected on a galvo mirror, and reimaged onto a liquid crystal reflective spatial light modulator (SLM, Meadowlark ODP512)”).
Regarding claim 9, Parot teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Parot further teaches that the galvo is located on an optical path between the laser and the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; 1. Microsecond Selective Access Scanner: “A collimated femtosecond laser was focused by a cylindrical lens onto a diffraction-limited line, reflected on a galvo mirror, and reimaged onto a liquid crystal reflective spatial light modulator (SLM, Meadowlark ODP512)”).
Regarding claim 10, Parot teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Parot further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control, using the galvo, the laser to cause one pulse to land on each row of the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; 1. Microsecond Selective Access Scanner: “The focused line covered one row of pixels in the SLM, and was translated transversally by the galvo scanner so that each laser shot landed on a successive row of SLM pixels”).
Regarding claim 11, Parot teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Parot further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control the galvo to scan the laser in one dimension, and holographically refocus the laser in a second dimension, using the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; 1. Microsecond Selective Access Scanner: “The holographic reflection from the SLM was focused in 1D by another cylindrical lens, and imaged to the sample plane through a 25x objective (Olympus XLPLN25XWMP2). The sample plane was scanned periodically at 400 Hz in one dimension by galvo motion, and holographically targeted in the second dimension, with a different 1D hologram imparted by each row of the SLM. This strategy enabled sequential addressing of selected target locations over a large area (0.5 mm x 0.5 mm) in the sample plane”).
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alemohammad et al. (NPL titled: “High-speed compressive line-scanned two photon microscopy” providing in Proceedings Biophotonics Congress: Biomedical Optics 2020, published 04/20/2020; hereinafter – “Alemohammad”).
Regarding claim 1, Alemohammad teaches a device for two-dimensional light steering, comprising:
a spatial light modulator (DMD) (See e.g. Fig. 1; 2. Experimental Setup and results: “Pulses from a Ti:Sapphire femtosecond laser source are mapped to a line on the DMD…”);
a laser (Ti:Sapph Laser) in optical communication with the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; 2. Experimental Setup and results: “Pulses from a Ti:Sapphire femtosecond laser source are mapped to a line on the DMD…”); and
at least one controller configured to control the spatial light modulator, wherein the at least one controller is configured to direct a beam of light from the laser onto a sample such that positions along a scan direction (y) of the spatial light modulator map to y- positions on a sample, and angular deflections along an orthogonal direction (x) of the spatial light modulator map to x-positions on a sample (See e.g. Fig. 1; 2. Experimental Setup and results: “Pulses from a Ti:Sapphire femtosecond laser source are mapped to a line on the DMD using a cylindrical lens. A 12-kHz resonant scanner is used to rapidly sweep the line across the DMD. The swept line is further mapped onto a 1200 line/mm diffraction grating to form line-scanned temporally focused excitation…The diffracted and patterned light off the grating pass through a 4-f setup that consists of a tube lens, a dichroic beam splitter, and an objective lens creating patterned line-scanned TFTP illumination in the sample”).
Regarding claim 3, Alemohammad teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Alemohammad further teaches that the spatial light modulator comprises a digital micromirror device (See e.g. Fig. 1; 2. Experimental Setup and results: “Pulses from a Ti:Sapphire femtosecond laser source are mapped to a line on the DMD…”).
Regarding claim 5, Alemohammad teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Alemohammad further teaches that the laser is a pulsed laser (See e.g. Fig. 1; 2. Experimental Setup and results: “Pulses from a Ti:Sapphire femtosecond laser source are mapped to a line on the DMD…”).
Regarding claim 6, Alemohammad teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Alemohammad further teaches that the laser is a femtosecond pulsed laser (See e.g. Fig. 1; 2. Experimental Setup and results: “Pulses from a Ti:Sapphire femtosecond laser source are mapped to a line on the DMD…”).
Regarding claim 7, Alemohammad teaches the device of claim 5, as above.
Alemohammad further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control the pulsed laser to operate at a pulse rate of at least 500 kHz (Fig. 1: “Ti:Sapph Laser 150 fs, 800 nm”: Alemohammad’s laser having a pulse duration of 150 fs meets the claimed pulse rate, given that pulse rate is the inverse of the duration).
Regarding claim 8, Alemohammad teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Alemohammad further teaches a galvanometric mirror (galvo) (“Resonant scanner”), wherein the at least one controller is further configured to control, using the galvanometric mirror, the laser such that a constant number of laser pulses from the laser lands on at least some rows of the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; 2. Experimental Setup and results: “Pulses from a Ti:Sapphire femtosecond laser source are mapped to a line on the DMD using a cylindrical lens. A 12-kHz resonant scanner is used to rapidly sweep the line across the DMD”).
Regarding claim 9, Alemohammad teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Alemohammad further teaches that the galvo is located on an optical path between the laser and the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; 2. Experimental Setup and results: “Pulses from a Ti:Sapphire femtosecond laser source are mapped to a line on the DMD using a cylindrical lens. A 12-kHz resonant scanner is used to rapidly sweep the line across the DMD”).
Regarding claim 10, Alemohammad teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Alemohammad further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control, using the galvo, the laser to cause one pulse to land on each row of the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; 2. Experimental Setup and results: “Pulses from a Ti:Sapphire femtosecond laser source are mapped to a line on the DMD using a cylindrical lens. A 12-kHz resonant scanner is used to rapidly sweep the line across the DMD”).
Regarding claim 11, Alemohammad teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Alemohammad further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control the galvo to scan the laser in one dimension, and holographically refocus the laser in a second dimension, using the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; 2. Experimental Setup and results: “Pulses from a Ti:Sapphire femtosecond laser source are mapped to a line on the DMD using a cylindrical lens. A 12-kHz resonant scanner is used to rapidly sweep the line across the DMD. The swept line is further mapped onto a 1200 line/mm diffraction grating to form linescanned temporally focused excitation”).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-11 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (NPL titled: “Large-scale femtosecond holography for near simultaneous optogenetic neural modulation; hereinafter – “Sun”).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a device for two-dimensional light steering, comprising:
a spatial light modulator (“SLM”) (See e.g. Fig. 2; 2. Methods: “To evaluate the maximum speed and FOV, we implemented the large FOV femtosecond holography system (Fig. 2). Specifically, we utilized an 8MHz EO modulator for precise timing control of the laser illumination.”);
a laser in optical communication with the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 2; 2. Methods: “The expanded beam was relayed by a pair of telecentric scan lenses (f = 200mm and f = 120 mm) onto a 1920×1152 pixel SLM, such that the aperture occupied 320 pixels (1/6 of the 1920 pixels) across its diameter”); and
at least one controller configured to control the spatial light modulator, wherein the at least one controller is configured to direct a beam of light from the laser onto a sample such that positions along a scan direction (y) of the spatial light modulator map to y- positions on a sample, and angular deflections along an orthogonal direction (x) of the spatial light modulator map to x-positions on a sample (See e.g. Fig. 2; 1. Introduction: “The essence is to utilize high speed SLM to update the hologram and utilize galvo to deliver the different holograms to different spatial locations”; 2. Methods: “The expanded beam was relayed by a pair of telecentric scan lenses (f = 200mm and f = 120 mm) onto a 1920×1152 pixel SLM, such that the aperture occupied 320 pixels (1/6 of the 1920 pixels) across its diameter. We displayed 6 holograms side by side on the SLM. The laser beam position on the SLM was controlled by a galvo which is positioned at the common focal plane of the two relay lenses (L1 and L2 in Fig. 2)… A key requirement for high-speed operation is the precise timing control of the galvo movement and the laser illumination”; 4. Discussion).
Regarding claim 2, Sun teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Sun further teaches that the spatial light modulator comprises a liquid crystal on silicon chip (See e.g. Fig. 2; 1. Introduction: “Currently available SLM (e.g. GAEA-2 from Holoeye and JD7714 from Jasper) can provide ≈4000 pixels per line”).
Regarding claim 5, Sun teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Sun further teaches that the laser is a pulsed laser (See e.g. Fig. 2; 1. Introduction: “The FOV of femtosecond holography is often limited by the inherent short coherence length of the laser pulse (Fig. 1)…the coherence length of 100-200 femtosecond pulses of the commonly used femtosecond oscillator is typically 30-60 μm, which is only 32-64 λ…With the maximum tilting limited by the coherence length c×τ, where c is the speed of light and τ is the pulse duration, the FOV will be reduced to c×τ/NA (e.g. 120 μm for NA 0.5 and 200 fs pulse duration)”; 2. Methods: “To evaluate the maximum speed and FOV, we implemented the large FOV femtosecond holography system (Fig. 2). Specifically, we utilized an 8MHz EO modulator for precise timing control of the laser illumination.”).
Regarding claim 6, Sun teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Sun further teaches that the laser is a femtosecond pulsed laser (See e.g. Fig. 2; 1. Introduction: “The FOV of femtosecond holography is often limited by the inherent short coherence length of the laser pulse (Fig. 1)…the coherence length of 100-200 femtosecond pulses of the commonly used femtosecond oscillator is typically 30-60 μm, which is only 32-64 λ…With the maximum tilting limited by the coherence length c×τ, where c is the speed of light and τ is the pulse duration, the FOV will be reduced to c×τ/NA (e.g. 120 μm for NA 0.5 and 200 fs pulse duration)”; 2. Methods: “To evaluate the maximum speed and FOV, we implemented the large FOV femtosecond holography system (Fig. 2). Specifically, we utilized an 8MHz EO modulator for precise timing control of the laser illumination.”).
Regarding claim 7, Sun teaches the device of claim 5, as above.
Sun further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control the pulsed laser to operate at a pulse rate of at least 500 kHz (See e.g. Fig. 2; 1. Introduction: “The FOV of femtosecond holography is often limited by the inherent short coherence length of the laser pulse (Fig. 1)…the coherence length of 100-200 femtosecond pulses of the commonly used femtosecond oscillator is typically 30-60 μm, which is only 32-64 λ…With the maximum tilting limited by the coherence length c×τ, where c is the speed of light and τ is the pulse duration, the FOV will be reduced to c×τ/NA (e.g. 120 μm for NA 0.5 and 200 fs pulse duration)”; 2. Methods: “To evaluate the maximum speed and FOV, we implemented the large FOV femtosecond holography system (Fig. 2). Specifically, we utilized an 8MHz EO modulator for precise timing control of the laser illumination.”).
Regarding claim 8, Sun teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Sun further teaches a galvanometric mirror (galvo), wherein the at least one controller is further configured to control, using the galvanometric mirror, the laser such that a constant number of laser pulses from the laser lands on at least some rows of the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 2; 2. Methods: “The expanded beam was relayed by a pair of telecentric scan lenses (f = 200mm and f = 120 mm) onto a 1920×1152 pixel SLM, such that the aperture occupied 320 pixels (1/6 of the 1920 pixels) across its diameter. We displayed 6 holograms side by side on the SLM. The laser beam position on the SLM was controlled by a galvo which is positioned at the common focal plane of the two relay lenses (L1 and L2 in Fig. 2)… A key requirement for high-speed operation is the precise timing control of the galvo movement and the laser illumination”; 4. Discussion).
Regarding claim 9, Sun teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Sun further teaches that the galvo is located on an optical path between the laser and the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 2; 2. Methods: “The expanded beam was relayed by a pair of telecentric scan lenses (f = 200mm and f = 120 mm) onto a 1920×1152 pixel SLM, such that the aperture occupied 320 pixels (1/6 of the 1920 pixels) across its diameter. We displayed 6 holograms side by side on the SLM. The laser beam position on the SLM was controlled by a galvo which is positioned at the common focal plane of the two relay lenses (L1 and L2 in Fig. 2)”).
Regarding claim 10, Sun teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Sun further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control, using the galvo, the laser to cause one pulse to land on each row of the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 2; 2. Methods: “The expanded beam was relayed by a pair of telecentric scan lenses (f = 200mm and f = 120 mm) onto a 1920×1152 pixel SLM, such that the aperture occupied 320 pixels (1/6 of the 1920 pixels) across its diameter. We displayed 6 holograms side by side on the SLM. The laser beam position on the SLM was controlled by a galvo which is positioned at the common focal plane of the two relay lenses (L1 and L2 in Fig. 2)… A key requirement for high-speed operation is the precise timing control of the galvo movement and the laser illumination”; 4. Discussion).
Regarding claim 11, Sun teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Sun further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control the galvo to scan the laser in one dimension, and holographically refocus the laser in a second dimension, using the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 2; 2. Methods: “The expanded beam was relayed by a pair of telecentric scan lenses (f = 200mm and f = 120 mm) onto a 1920×1152 pixel SLM, such that the aperture occupied 320 pixels (1/6 of the 1920 pixels) across its diameter. We displayed 6 holograms side by side on the SLM. The laser beam position on the SLM was controlled by a galvo which is positioned at the common focal plane of the two relay lenses (L1 and L2 in Fig. 2)”).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuste et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2018/0373009; hereinafter – “Yuste”).
Regarding claim 1, Yuste teaches a device for two-dimensional light steering, comprising:
a spatial light modulator (130) (See e.g. Figs. 1A; Paragraphs 0070-0071, 0099, and 0114);
a laser (105) in optical communication with the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Figs. 1A; Paragraphs 0100, 0114, and 0136); and
at least one controller configured to control the spatial light modulator, wherein the at least one controller is configured to direct a beam of light from the laser onto a sample such that positions along a scan direction (y) of the spatial light modulator map to y- positions on a sample, and angular deflections along an orthogonal direction (x) of the spatial light modulator map to x-positions on a sample (See e.g. Fig. 1A; Paragraphs 0071-0077 and 0094-0095).
Regarding claim 2, Yuste teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Yuste further teaches that the spatial light modulator comprises a liquid crystal on silicon chip (See e.g. Figs. 1A; Paragraphs 0070-0071, 0099, 0114, and 0116, e.g. Paragraph 0114: “the spatial light modulator (e.g., Meadowlark Optics, HSP512-1064, 7.68×7.68 mm2 active area, 512×512 pixels)”).
Regarding claim 5, Yuste teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Yuste further teaches that the laser is a pulsed laser (See e.g. Figs. 1A; Paragraphs 0100, 0114, and 0136, e.g. Paragraph 0114: “The laser source can be a pulsed Ti: Sapphire laser (e.g., Coherent Mira HP) which can be tuned to 940 nm with a maximum output power of approximately 1.4 W (e.g., approximately 140 fs pulse width, 80 MHz repetition rate)”).
Regarding claim 6, Yuste teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Yuste further teaches that the laser is a femtosecond pulsed laser (See e.g. Figs. 1A; Paragraphs 0100, 0114, and 0136, e.g. Paragraph 0114: “The laser source can be a pulsed Ti: Sapphire laser (e.g., Coherent Mira HP) which can be tuned to 940 nm with a maximum output power of approximately 1.4 W (e.g., approximately 140 fs pulse width, 80 MHz repetition rate)”).
Regarding claim 7, Yuste teaches the device of claim 5, as above.
Yuste further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control the pulsed laser to operate at a pulse rate of at least 500 kHz (See e.g. Figs. 1A; Paragraphs 0100, 0114, and 0136, e.g. Paragraph 0114: “The laser source can be a pulsed Ti: Sapphire laser (e.g., Coherent Mira HP) which can be tuned to 940 nm with a maximum output power of approximately 1.4 W (e.g., approximately 140 fs pulse width, 80 MHz repetition rate)”).
Regarding claim 8, Yuste teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Yuste further teaches a galvanometric mirror (galvo) (140), wherein the at least one controller is further configured to control, using the galvanometric mirror, the laser to cause that a constant number of laser pulses from the laser lands on at least some rows of the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1A; Paragraphs 0070-0071, 0075, 0114, and 0147).
Regarding claim 10, Yuste teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Yuste further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control, using the galvo, the laser to cause one pulse to land on each row of the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1A; Paragraphs 0070-0075, 0114-0115, and 0147).
Regarding claim 11, Yuste teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Yuste further teaches that the at least one controller is configured control the galvo to scan the laser in one dimension, and holographically refocus the laser in a second dimension, using the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1A; Paragraphs 0070-0075, 0114-0118, and 0147).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-11 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wynn (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2010/0141855).
Regarding claim 1, Wynn teaches a device for two-dimensional light steering, comprising:
a spatial light modulator (4, 34, 80, 150, 166) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 16-17; Paragraphs 0042-0046, 0052, and 0061-0063);
a laser (6, 26, 72, 142, 162) in optical communication with the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 16-17; Paragraphs 0010, 0042-0046, 0052, and 0061-0063); and
at least one controller configured to control the spatial light modulator, wherein the at least one controller is configured to direct a beam of light from the laser onto a sample such that positions along a scan direction (y) of the spatial light modulator map to y- positions on a sample, and angular deflections along an orthogonal direction (x) of the spatial light modulator map to x-positions on a sample (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 16-17; Paragraphs 0045-0055 and 0063).
Regarding claim 2, Wynn teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Wynn further teaches that the spatial light modulator comprises a liquid crystal on silicon chip (Paragraphs 0002, 0008, and 0046).
Regarding claim 3, Wynn teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Wynn further teaches that the spatial light modulator comprises a digital micromirror device (Paragraphs 0002, 0008, and 0046).
Regarding claim 8, Wynn teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Wynn further teaches a galvanometric mirror (galvo) (30, 32, 76, 84), wherein the at least one controller is further configured to control, using the galvanometric mirror, the laser such that a constant number of laser pulses from the laser lands on at least some rows of the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Figs. 2-7; Paragraphs 0045-0053 and 0061-0063).
Regarding claim 9, Wynn teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Wynn further teaches that the galvo is located on an optical path between the laser and the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Figs. 2-7; Paragraphs 0045-0053 and 0061-0063).
Regarding claim 10, Wynn teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Wynn further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control, using the galvo, the laser to cause one pulse to land on each row of the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Figs. 2-7; Paragraphs 0045-0053 and 0061-0063).
Regarding claim 11, Wynn teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Wynn further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control the galvo to scan the laser in one dimension, and holographically refocus the laser in a second dimension, using the spatial light modulator (Paragraph 0052).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-11 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takiguchi et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2010/0079832; hereinafter – “Takiguchi”).
Regarding claim 1, Takiguchi teaches a device for two-dimensional light steering, comprising:
a spatial light modulator (20) (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0041-0044);
a laser (10) in optical communication with the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0041-0044); and
at least one controller configured to control the spatial light modulator, wherein the at least one controller is configured to direct a beam of light from the laser onto a sample such that positions along a scan direction (y) of the spatial light modulator map to y- positions on a sample, and angular deflections along an orthogonal direction (x) of the spatial light modulator map to x-positions on a sample (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0041-0044 and 0066).
Regarding claim 2, Takiguchi teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Takiguchi further teaches that the spatial light modulator comprises a liquid crystal on silicon chip (Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 3, Takiguchi teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Takiguchi further teaches that the spatial light modulator comprises a digital micromirror device (Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 5, Takiguchi teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Takiguchi further teaches that the laser is a pulsed laser (Paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 6, Takiguchi teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Takiguchi further teaches that the laser is a femtosecond pulsed laser (Paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 7, Takiguchi teaches the device of claim 5, as above.
Takiguchi further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control the pulsed laser to operate at a pulse rate of at least 500 kHz (Paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 8, Takiguchi teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Takiguchi further teaches a galvanometric mirror (galvo) (13, 14), wherein the at least one controller is further configured to control, using the galvanometric mirror, the laser such that a constant number of laser pulses from the laser lands on at least some rows of the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0041-0044 and 0066).
Regarding claim 9, Takiguchi teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Takiguchi further teaches that the galvo is located on an optical path between the laser and the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0041-0044 and 0066).
Regarding claim 10, Takiguchi teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Takiguchi further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control, using the galvo, the laser to cause one pulse to land on each row of the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0041-0044 and 0066).
Regarding claim 11, Takiguchi teaches the device of claim 8, as above.
Takiguchi further teaches that the at least one controller is configured to control the galvo to scan the laser in one dimension, and holographically refocus the laser in a second dimension, using the spatial light modulator (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0042-0045 and 0048-0056).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parot, Sun, or Yuste in view of Fu et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2018/0196353; hereinafter – “Fu”).
Regarding claim 3, Parot, Sun, and Yuste each teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Parot, Sun, and Yuste fail to explicitly disclose that the spatial light modulator is a digital micromirror device.
However, Fu teaches a multiphoton absorption lithography processing system comprising a spatial light modulator (200) and a laser (110) in optical communication with the spatial light modulator, wherein the spatial light modulator is a digital micromirror device (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0017-0018 and 0026).
Fu teaches this digital micromirror device as a suitable choice of spatial light modulator to “effectively shorten a processing time and meanwhile, maintain processing with high precision” (Paragraph 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Parot, Sun, or Yuste with the digital micromirror device of Fu to “effectively shorten a processing time and meanwhile, maintain processing with high precision,” as taught by Fu (Paragraph 0006).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a system with a laser and a spatial light modulator) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a digital micromirror device) with other component(s) (i.e., a liquid crystal on silicon spatial light modulator), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element for another (i.e., substituting a digital micromirror device for a liquid crystal on silicon device), and the results of the substitution (i.e., a system with a digital micromirror device as a spatial light modulator) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to In re Fout, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), and/or In re O'Farrell, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the liquid crystal on silicon spatial light modulator of reference Parot, Sun, or Yuste for the digital micromirror device of reference Fu, since the result woul