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 .
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 12-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiMarzio et al. (US PUB 20080032325; herein after “DiMarzio” in related Examples) in view of SMALL et al. (US PUB 20190235224; herein after “SMALL”).
DiMarzio and SMALL disclose optical microscopy system and method. Therefore, they are analogous art.
Regarding claim 1, DiMarzio teaches a system (i.e., an optical quadrature microscopy, FIGS. 22, para. [0038]) and comprising: a first optical system (a first imaging modality) configured to generate an optical phase signal associated with a first image (DIC image) of a sample (10) in a first field of view (i.e., first image based on the phase signal, para. [0104]); a second optical system (a second imaging modality) configured to generate a polarized signal associated with a second image (epi-fluorescence image) of the sample in a second field of view (a linearly polarized signal path travels through the sample on the microscope, para. [0051], also see para. [0007], [0016], [0059] and [0064]); and one or more processors (computer control, para. [0100]) configured to generate a co-registered phase and polarization information map (i.e., Phase evaluation produces a phase map from the spatial distribution of the phase. Phase unwrapping is required to produce a quantitative image of the phase map, para. [0047]) based on the optical phase signal and the polarized signal (i.e., the input image can be registered to the base image by applying the affine transformation with the Matlab function imtransform, para. [0070] … The acquired DIC and epi-fluorescence images are automatically registered (co-registered) to the optical quadrature CCDs [0128]. Also see para. [0041], [0047], [0065]-[0067] and [0118]), wherein the first field of view is the same as the second field of view (para. [0100]) and wherein the first image and the second image are captured sequentially (i.e., all DIC and epi-fluorescence images were captured with one of the four cameras installed for optical quadrature, para. [0108], also see para. [0107)).
DiMarzio teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of a first and a second field of view, the first field of view is the same as the second field of view, and the first image and the second image are captured sequentially.
However, in a related field of endeavor SMALL teaches determine a plurality of shift values that correspond with a plurality of portions of a field of view of image capture device 102 to determine three-dimensional information, para. [0053], FIG. 1. Image capture device 102 may be used to capture images of sample 114. In this specification, the term “image capture device” includes a device that records the optical signals entering a lens as an image or a sequence of images, para. [0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of DiMarzio such that a plurality of portions of a field of view of image capture device (e.g., having same first and second field of view for 1st and 2nd image), the image capture device that records the optical signals entering a lens as an image or a sequence of images as taught by SMALL, to improve the quality of the image.
Regarding claim 12, DiMarzio according to claim 1 further teaches the second optical system comprises at least one variable retarder (i.e., The linearly polarized reference path (e.g., of the second imaging modality) travels through a quarter-wave plate, or retarder, para. [0052, lines 1-2]).
Regarding claim 13, DiMarzio according to claim 12 further teaches the at least one variable retarder is a liquid crystal retarder (i.e., The linearly polarized reference path travels through a quarter-wave plate (e.g., a liquid crystal retarder), para. [0052, lines 1-2]).
DiMarzio discloses the claimed invention except for explicit teachings of a liquid crystal retarder. However, DiMarzio disclose a quarter-wave plate that is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two retarders were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a quarter-wave plate for a liquid crystal retarder whose optical axis is oriented at 45º with respect to a polarization axis of an incident light to produce circularly polarized light.
Regarding claim 14, DiMarzio according to claim 1 further teaches the sample is a living biospecimen (i.e., cells in a sample of living tissue, see Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, DiMarzio according to claim 1 further teaches the processor is further configured to output a thickness value and a material type of the sample (i.e., the sample as the culture medium… the thickness and the material properties are perfectly uniform, para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 20, DiMarzio according to claim 1 further teaches a method for imaging a sample (FIG. 1), the method comprising: illuminating a sample (10) using a first illumination beam (from laser 20, FIG. 22, para. [0059], [0064] and [0100]); detecting via a detector (CCD 70) an interference of a scattered beam from the sample and a reference beam in a first field of view; generating an optical phase signal based on the detected interference; illuminating the sample using a second illumination beam (from Halogen lamp 80, FIG. 22, para. [0059], [0064] and [0100]); detecting via another detector another scattered beam from the sample in a second field of view; generating a polarized signal based on the another scattered beam (i.e., the first step 110 is to acquire both DIC and OPD images of the cell or tissue sample, para. [0044] and as set forth in claim 1 above); and generating a co-registered phase and polarization information map based on the optical phase signal and the polarized signal (i.e., image registration in step 120 and as set forth in claim 1 above) wherein the scattered light beam and the another scattered light beam are detected sequentially (i.e., all DIC and epi-fluorescence images were captured with one of the four cameras installed for optical quadrature, para. [0108], also see para. [0107)) and wherein the second field of view is the same as the first field of view (para. [0100] and as set forth in claim 1 above).
DiMarzio teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of a first and a second field of view, the first field of view is the same as the second field of view, and the first image and the second image are captured sequentially.
However, in a related field of endeavor SMALL teaches determine a plurality of shift values that correspond with a plurality of portions of a field of view of image capture device 102 to determine three-dimensional information, para. [0053], FIG. 1. Image capture device 102 may be used to capture images of sample 114. In this specification, the term “image capture device” includes a device that records the optical signals entering a lens as an image or a sequence of images, para. [0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of DiMarzio such that a plurality of portions of a field of view of image capture device (e.g., having same first and second field of view for 1st and 2nd image), the image capture device that records the optical signals entering a lens as an image or a sequence of images as taught by SMALL, to improve the quality of the image.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding the first optical system comprises: a first illumination source configured to generate a first illumination beam, and a first detection system configured to detect at least a first scattered light beam from the sample and to generate the optical phase signal; and wherein the second optical system comprises: a second illumination source configured to generate a second illumination beam, and a second detection system configured to detect a second scattered light beam from the sample and to generate the polarized signal.
Claims 3-11 depend upon allowable claim 2.
Claims 16-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art taken either singularly or in a combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in independent claim 16, for example a microscope, where an objective configured to focus a first illumination beam or a second illumination beam on a sample; a movable stage to alternate between a first position and a second position, in the first position the first illumination beam illuminates the sample and in the second position the second illumination beam illuminates the sample; a first detection system to detect at least a first scattered light beam from the sample when the movable stage is in the first position; a second detection system to detect a second scattered light beam from the sample when the movable stage is in the second position; and a processor configured to generate an optical phase signal based on the at least first scattered light beam and a polarized signal based on the second scattered light beam.
Claims 17-19 are also allowed as being dependent from allowable claim 16.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Levinski (US PUB 20180031470) teaches “the targets may be designed to respond to polarized illumination by producing a first phase shift between zeroth order diffraction signals upon illumination thereof and optical systems may be designed to illuminate the target by polarized illumination and to analyze a resulting diffraction signal to yield a second phase shift between zeroth order diffraction signals upon illumination thereof”, see Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAK CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-5247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on (571)272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
April 23, 2025