DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10 and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/19/2026 in regards to Claims 1 and 24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Singer does not explicitly disclose, “ a single image”, because Singer instead teaches wherein the detector, “…captures an imaging spot with spatial resolution very quickly in each scanning position.” Applicant’s argument that Singer teaching multiple images acquired from the multiple scanning positions does not explicitly teach a singular image, was not found persuasive.
The disclosure of Singer explicitly teaches that the acquisition of a single image was known in the prior art because the scope of capturing image spots in each scanning position is narrower than simply acquiring a single image. Effectively, Singer discloses a species of the more generic claim in the Instant Application. See 2131.02 (I)(A)"A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus." The species in that case will anticipate the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Thus the rejection of Claims 1 and 24 have been sustained.
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) 1-5, 24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singer (US 20150077844 A1).
Re Claim 1, Singer discloses, on Fig. 1, a microscope comprising: an illumination optical system (laser 3, with optics 4, and 8) [Par 78] that focuses illumination light (lens 8 focuses light) and forms an illumination region on a sample (sample P);
a detection optical system (input 19, imaging spot 14, detection plane 15, Detector array 20) that forms on an image plane an image by light from the sample on which the illumination region is formed on an image plane [Par 84]
an aberration setting unit (Adaptive optic unit 17) that sets an aberration state of the illumination optical system (“…the resulting correction wavefront delivered to the control of the adaptive optics unit 17”) [Par 28 and 87]
a detector (detector array 20) in which a detection surface (input 19) having a plurality of aligned detection units is arranged on the image plane (detection plane 15) of the detection optical system [Par 80-82];
a processor (Evaluation unit 21) programmed to
calculate light amount distribution information of a detection image detected by the plurality of detection units (point spread function or PSF contains information regarding lateral intensity distribution and further, “two-dimensional spatially resolved Airy disks are captured, which represent a PSF for a focus position. In the process, the light quantity of a portion of the Airy disk is detected in each pixel of the detector”) [Par 85];
determine (evaluation unit 21 performs the role of computation unit and processor is programmed to calculate) an aberration state of at least one of the illumination optical system which should be set by the aberration setting unit based on the light amount distribution information of the detection image in a plurality of aberration states set by the aberration setting unit (“The form, or lateral resolution, of the PSF can now be used to define the aberrations in the system, which represent the deviation of the measured values compared to the ideal PSF without aberrations and, in a preferred embodiment, are corrected by means of an element (adaptive optics unit).”…”In addition, the data of the evaluation unit 21 are compared with an ideal PSF (Detail A) and the resulting correction wavefront delivered to the control of the adaptive optics unit 17) [Par 28 and 86-87];
and a scanning portion (Scanner 7) that relatively scans the illumination region and the sample while maintaining a conjugate relationship between the illumination region and the image plane (“Following the scanner in the imaging direction, a stationary light beam D is present. Emission filters 6 and 12 are positioned in a known fashion in the imaging beam path D, so as to select the fluorescence radiation from the spot 11 with respect to its wavelength. An optics unit 13 provides for imaging the spot 11 as an imaging spot 14 (two-dimensional Airy disk) in a detection plane 15 at a certain size”) [Par 80],
wherein the detection image is a single image formed by temporally accumulating the image that is formed on the image plane of the detection optical system while the illumination region moves relatively on the sample (“…the detector includes an evaluation unit for determining a point-spread function (PSF.sub.Abb) of the imaging spot in each scanning position. In the process, the point-spread function of the current scanning position is evaluated starting from the current, one or more prior or adjoining scanning positions, so as to control the adaptive optics unit with a control device…it actually captures an imaging spot with spatial resolution very quickly in each scanning position.” [Par 33-34] for each aberration state of the plurality of aberration states set by the aberration setting unit (“Here, each individual optical fiber 18 represents a pixel of the imaging spot 14. An input 19 of the bundle is positioned in the detection plane 15. Here, the optical fibers 18 are arranged tightly pressed or packed together so that a circle-like or nearly circular structure is formed which can completely capture the imaging spot 14”) [Par 81-84].
Re Claim 2, Singer discloses, the microscope according to claim 1, and Singer further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the accumulation is performed by the detector (Detector 16 includes wherein, “…each individual optical fiber 18 represents a pixel of the imaging spot 14. An input 19 of the bundle is positioned in the detection plane 15. Here, the optical fibers 18 are arranged tightly pressed or packed together so that a circle-like or nearly circular structure is formed which can completely capture the imaging spot 14.”, thus the image is accumulated) [Par 82].
Re Claim 3, Singer discloses, the microscope according to claim 1, and Signer further discloses on Fig. 1, comprising: an accumulation portion that performs the accumulation (input 19 accumulates optical fibers 18 which represent a pixel of the imaging spot 14) [Par 82].
Re Claim 4, Singer discloses, the microscope according to claim 1, and further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the processor is programmed to calculate (Evaluation unit 21), as the light amount distribution information, an amount corresponding to a width of light amount distribution of the detection image (“…two-dimensional spatially resolved Airy disks are captured, which represent a PSF for a focus position. In the process, the light quantity of a portion of the Airy disk is detected in each pixel of the detector.” Thus light quality across the width and height is detected in each pixel) [Par 85].
Re Claim 5, Singer discloses, the microscope according to claim 1, and Singer further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the processor is programmed to calculate (evaluation unit 21), as the light amount distribution information (point spread function or PSF contains information regarding lateral intensity distribution and further, “two-dimensional spatially resolved Airy disks are captured, which represent a PSF for a focus position. In the process, the light quantity of a portion of the Airy disk is detected in each pixel of the detector”) [Par 85], an n-th moment (n is an integer of 2 or more) of light amount distribution of the detection image or an n-th normalization moment obtained by dividing the n-th moment of the light amount distribution of the detection image by an integration value of the light amount distribution of the detection image (these calculations are for statistical moments and coefficients of variance which would inherently be part of the statistical calculations of lateral intensity distribution and two-dimensional spatially resolved Airy disks which represent a PSF for a focus position. In the process, and wherein the light quantity of a portion of the Airy disk is detected in each pixel of the detector) [Par 85].
Further, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
Re Claim 24, Singer discloses, on Fig. 1, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that is executed by a processor of a microscope to cause the microscope to execute a process that comprises (Control device is present but now shown) [Par 77 and 81], relatively scanning an illumination region on a sample on which illumination light by an illumination optical system is focused on the sample (“The scanner 7 provides for the scanning movement of the laser beam B over the sample P”, and bean is focused by lens 8) [Par 78 ],
accumulating an image by light from the sample on which the illumination region is scanned (“Here, each individual optical fiber 18 represents a pixel of the imaging spot 14. An input 19 of the bundle is positioned in the detection plane 15. Here, the optical fibers 18 are arranged tightly pressed or packed together so that a circle-like or nearly circular structure is formed which can completely capture the imaging spot 14”) [Par 81-84],
and acquiring a detection image for each of a plurality of aberration states of a detection optical system or the illumination optical system are different from each other (“The form, or lateral resolution, of the PSF can now be used to define the aberrations in the system, which represent the deviation of the measured values compared to the ideal PSF without aberrations and, in a preferred embodiment, are corrected by means of an element (adaptive optics unit).”…”In addition, the data of the evaluation unit 21 are compared with an ideal PSF (Detail A) and the resulting correction wavefront delivered to the control of the adaptive optics unit 17) [Par 28 and 86-87],
the detection image being detected by a plurality of detection units arranged on an image plane of the detection optical system (optical fibers 18 arranged on imaging spot 14 and detection plane 15) [Par 81-84],
calculating light amount distribution information of the detection image (point spread function or PSF contains information regarding lateral intensity distribution and further, “two-dimensional spatially resolved Airy disks are captured, which represent a PSF for a focus position. In the process, the light quantity of a portion of the Airy disk is detected in each pixel of the detector”) [Par 85],
and causing a computation unit through the control part to determine an aberration state which should be set in the illumination optical system or the detection optical system based on a plurality of the light amount distribution information (“The form, or lateral resolution, of the PSF can now be used to define the aberrations in the system, which represent the deviation of the measured values compared to the ideal PSF without aberrations and, in a preferred embodiment, are corrected by means of an element (adaptive optics unit).”…”In addition, the data of the evaluation unit 21 are compared with an ideal PSF (Detail A) and the resulting correction wavefront delivered to the control of the adaptive optics unit 17) [Par 28 and 86-87],
wherein the detection image is a single image formed by temporally accumulating the image that is formed on the image plane of the detection optical system while the illumination region moves relatively on the sample for each aberration state of the plurality of aberration states sample (“…the detector includes an evaluation unit for determining a point-spread function (PSF.sub.Abb) of the imaging spot in each scanning position. In the process, the point-spread function of the current scanning position is evaluated starting from the current, one or more prior or adjoining scanning positions, so as to control the adaptive optics unit with a control device…it actually captures an imaging spot with spatial resolution very quickly in each scanning position.”) [Par 33-34].
Re Claim 26, Singer discloses, the microscope according to claim 1, and Singer further discloses, wherein the single detection image is obtained by combining a plurality of output detection images obtained by detecting the light formed on the image plane of the detection optical system a plurality of times as the illumination region moves relatively on the sample (“…the detector includes an evaluation unit for determining a point-spread function (PSF.sub.Abb) of the imaging spot in each scanning position. In the process, the point-spread function of the current scanning position is evaluated starting from the current, one or more prior or adjoining scanning positions, so as to control the adaptive optics unit with a control device…it actually captures an imaging spot with spatial resolution very quickly in each scanning position.”, accumulated images are used to adjust aberration wavefront and produce a spatially resolved imaging spot) [Par 32-34].
Re claim 27, Singer discloses, the microscope according to claim 1, and Singer further discloses, wherein the single detection image is obtained by the plurality of aligned detection units of the detector accumulating the light formed on the image plane of the detection optical system as the illumination region moves relatively on the sample (“Here, each individual optical fiber 18 represents a pixel of the imaging spot 14. An input 19 of the bundle is positioned in the detection plane 15. Here, the optical fibers 18 are arranged tightly pressed or packed together so that a circle-like or nearly circular structure is formed which can completely capture the imaging spot 14”) [Par 81-84]
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) 6-7, 10-14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of Wolleschensky (US 9632296 B2).
Re Claim 6, Singer discloses, the microscope according to claim 1.
But Singer does not explicitly disclose, wherein the detection optical system includes a variable magnification optical system that changes a size of the image on the image plane.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Wolleschensky teaches, on Fig. 5, that it is desirable in microscopes for the detection optical system (zoom optical system 27 and detect 19) include a variable magnification optical system (Zoom optical system 27) that changes a size of the image on the image plane [Col 10, Lines 15-25].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Singer with Wollschensky in order to provide, optimal adjustments of the image to the detector, as taught by Wollschensky [Col 10, Lines 15-25].
Re Claim 7, Singer in view of Wolleschensky discloses, the microscope according to claim 6, and Wolleschensky further discloses on Fig. 5-6, wherein the processor is programmed to control (control device C) [Col 8, Lines 40-50] that controls the variable magnification optical system such that the size of the image on the image plane is predetermined times of a width of a region in which the detection units of the detector are arranged.
The teaching of Wolleschensky would inherently comprise, controlling the variable magnification optical system such that the size of the image on the image plane is predetermined times of a width of a region in which the detection units of the detector are arranged, this being reasonably assumed from the disclosure of, “The zoom optical system 27 allows the image 17 to be optimally adjusted to the expansion of the input of the detector device 19” [Col 10, Lines 15-25]. The adjustment of the zoom optical system would inherently require the use of a magnification control unit, and its adjustment to the expansion of the input of the detector device would inherently make the resulting magnified image (image 17) a multiple of the width of the detection unit region (input of detector device 19 which consists of multiple fiber optic widths in a bundle 19) [Col 8, Lines 60-65].
Re Claim 10, Singer discloses, on Fig. 1, a microscope comprising: an illumination optical system (laser 3, with optics 4, and 8) [Par 78] that focuses illumination light (lens 8 focuses light) and forms an illumination region on a sample (sample P);
a detection optical system (input 19, imaging spot 14, detection plane 15, Detector array 20) that forms on an image plane an image by light from the sample on which the illumination region is formed on an image plane [Par 84]
an aberration setting unit (Adaptive optic unit 17) that sets an aberration state of the illumination optical system (“…the resulting correction wavefront delivered to the control of the adaptive optics unit 17”) [Par 28 and 87]
a detector (detector array 20) in which a detection surface (input 19) having a plurality of aligned detection units is arranged on the image plane (detection plane 15) of the detection optical system [Par 80-82];
a processor (Evaluation unit 21) programmed to
calculate light amount distribution information of a detection image detected by the plurality of detection units (point spread function or PSF contains information regarding lateral intensity distribution and further, “two-dimensional spatially resolved Airy disks are captured, which represent a PSF for a focus position. In the process, the light quantity of a portion of the Airy disk is detected in each pixel of the detector”) [Par 85];
determine (evaluation unit 21 performs the role of computation unit and processor is programmed to calculate) an aberration state of at least one of the illumination optical system which should be set by the aberration setting unit based on the light amount distribution information of the detection image in a plurality of aberration states set by the aberration setting unit (“The form, or lateral resolution, of the PSF can now be used to define the aberrations in the system, which represent the deviation of the measured values compared to the ideal PSF without aberrations and, in a preferred embodiment, are corrected by means of an element (adaptive optics unit).”…”In addition, the data of the evaluation unit 21 are compared with an ideal PSF (Detail A) and the resulting correction wavefront delivered to the control of the adaptive optics unit 17) [Par 28 and 86-87].
But Singer does not explicitly disclose, wherein processor is programmed to control the variable magnification optical system in accordance with a length in a column direction of a region of the detection surface in which the detection units of the detector are arranged and a length in a row direction orthogonal to the column direction such that the size of the image on the image plane is (i) predetermined times of a width of the region, which is a length in any one direction when the lengths are identical to each other, and (ii) the predetermined times of a width of the region, which is a length in a longer direction when the lengths are different from each other, a lower limit of the predetermined times being 0.6 to 0.7, and an upper limit of the predetermined times being 0.9 to 1.0.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Wolleschensky teaches, on Fig. 5, that it is desirable in microscopes for the detection optical system (zoom optical system 27 and detect 19) include a variable magnification optical system (Zoom optical system 27) that changes a size of the image on the image plane [Col 10, Lines 15-25], and the processor is programmed (control device C) [Col 8, Lines 40-50] to control the variable magnification optical system such that the size of the image on the image plane is predetermined times of a width of a region in which the detection units of the detector are arranged.
The teaching of Wolleschensky would inherently comprise, controlling the variable magnification optical system such that the size of the image on the image plane is predetermined times of a width of a region in which the detection units of the detector are arranged, this being reasonably assumed from the disclosure of, “The zoom optical system 27 allows the image 17 to be optimally adjusted to the expansion of the input of the detector device 19” [Col 10, Lines 15-25]. The adjustment of the zoom optical system would inherently require the use of a magnification control unit, and its adjustment to the expansion of the input of the detector device would inherently make the resulting magnified image (image 17) a multiple of the width of the detection unit region (input of detector device 19 which consists of multiple fiber optic widths in a bundle 19) [Col 8, Lines 60-65].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Singer with Wollschensky in order to provide, optimal adjustments of the image to the detector, as taught by Wollschensky [Col 10, Lines 15-25].
But Singer in view of Wollschensky does not explicitly disclose, the predetermined times of a width of the region, which is a length in a longer direction when the lengths are different from each other, a lower limit of the predetermined times being 0.6 to 0.7, and an upper limit of the predetermined times being 0.9 to 1.0.
However, since Wollschensky teaches, on Fig. 5, the explicit optimal adjustment of the output of the magnification system to fill the input area of the detection device [Col 10, Lines 15-25 and Col 11, Lines 35-45], controlling the length and width of said output of the magnification system would have been with the ability of one ordinary skill in the art, and that the ratio of the length to the width (“image…expansion”) [Col 10, Lines 15-25] is a variable with a known result, optimally filling the input area of the detection device. Further one of ordinary skill would have been would have been motivated to do so in order to provide, additional signal strength [Col 11, Lines 35-45]. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Singer in view of Wollschensky such that, the predetermined times of a width of the region, which is a length in a longer direction when the lengths are different from each other, a lower limit of the predetermined times being 0.6 to 0.7, and an upper limit of the predetermined times being 0.9 to 1.0, in order to provide additional signal strength, as taught by Wollschensky [Col 11, Lines 35-45].
Re Claim 11, Singer in view of Wolleschensky discloses, the microscope according to claim 10, and Singer further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the processor is programmed to calculate (Evaluation unit 21), as the light amount distribution information, an amount corresponding to a width of light amount distribution of the detection image (“…two-dimensional spatially resolved Airy disks are captured, which represent a PSF for a focus position. In the process, the light quantity of a portion of the Airy disk is detected in each pixel of the detector.” Thus light quality across the width and height is detected in each pixel) [Par 85].
Re Claim 12, Singer in view of Wollschensky discloses, the microscope according to claim 10, and Singer further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the processor is programmed to calculate (evaluation unit 21), as the light amount distribution information (point spread function or PSF contains information regarding lateral intensity distribution and further, “two-dimensional spatially resolved Airy disks are captured, which represent a PSF for a focus position. In the process, the light quantity of a portion of the Airy disk is detected in each pixel of the detector”) [Par 85], an n-th moment (n is an integer of 2 or more) of light amount distribution of the detection image or an n-th normalization moment obtained by dividing the n-th moment of the light amount distribution of the detection image by an integration value of the light amount distribution of the detection image (these calculations are for statistical moments and coefficients of variance which would inherently be part of the statistical calculations of lateral intensity distribution and two-dimensional spatially resolved Airy disks which represent a PSF for a focus position. In the process, and wherein the light quantity of a portion of the Airy disk is detected in each pixel of the detector) [Par 85].
Further, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
Re Claim 13, Singer in view of Wolleschensky discloses, the microscope according to claim 13, and Singer further discloses on Fig. 1, a scanning portion (Scanner 7) that relatively scans the illumination region and the sample while maintaining a conjugate relationship between the illumination region and the image plane(“. Following the scanner in the imaging direction, a stationary light beam D is present. Emission filters 6 and 12 are positioned in a known fashion in the imaging beam path D, so as to select the fluorescence radiation from the spot 11 with respect to its wavelength. An optics unit 13 provides for imaging the spot 11 as an imaging spot 14 (two-dimensional Airy disk) in a detection plane 15 at a certain size”) [Par 80], wherein the detection image is formed by accumulating the image by the light from the sample on which the illumination region is scanned (“Here, each individual optical fiber 18 represents a pixel of the imaging spot 14. An input 19 of the bundle is positioned in the detection plane 15. Here, the optical fibers 18 are arranged tightly pressed or packed together so that a circle-like or nearly circular structure is formed which can completely capture the imaging spot 14”) [Par 81-84].
Re Claim 14, Singer in view of Wolleschensky discloses, the microscope according to claim 13, and Singer further discloses on Fig. 1, an accumulation portion that accumulates, as an accumulated image, the image by the light from the sample on which the illumination region is scanned and detects the accumulated image as the detection image (Detector 16 includes wherein, “…each individual optical fiber 18 represents a pixel of the imaging spot 14. An input 19 of the bundle is positioned in the detection plane 15. Here, the optical fibers 18 are arranged tightly pressed or packed together so that a circle-like or nearly circular structure is formed which can completely capture the imaging spot 14.”, thus the image is accumulated) [Par 82].
Re Claim 25, Singer discloses, on Fig. 1, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that is executed by a processor of a microscope to cause the microscope to execute a process that comprises (Control device, or processor, is present but now shown) [Par 77 and 81],
accumulating an image by light from the sample on which the illumination region is scanned (“Here, each individual optical fiber 18 represents a pixel of the imaging spot 14. An input 19 of the bundle is positioned in the detection plane 15. Here, the optical fibers 18 are arranged tightly pressed or packed together so that a circle-like or nearly circular structure is formed which can completely capture the imaging spot 14”) [Par 81-84],
and acquiring a detection image for each of a plurality of aberration states of a detection optical system or the illumination optical system that are different from each other (“The form, or lateral resolution, of the PSF can now be used to define the aberrations in the system, which represent the deviation of the measured values compared to the ideal PSF without aberrations and, in a preferred embodiment, are corrected by means of an element (adaptive optics unit).”…”In addition, the data of the evaluation unit 21 are compared with an ideal PSF (Detail A) and the resulting correction wavefront delivered to the control of the adaptive optics unit 17) [Par 28 and 86-87],
each of the detection images being detected by a plurality of detection units arranged on an image plane of the detection optical system (optical fibers 18 arranged on imaging spot 14 and detection plane 15) [Par 81-84],
calculating light amount distribution information for the detection image (point spread function or PSF contains information regarding lateral intensity distribution and further, “two-dimensional spatially resolved Airy disks are captured, which represent a PSF for a focus position. In the process, the light quantity of a portion of the Airy disk is detected in each pixel of the detector”) [Par 85],
determining an aberration state which should be set in the illumination optical system or the detection optical system based on a plurality of the light amount distribution information(“The form, or lateral resolution, of the PSF can now be used to define the aberrations in the system, which represent the deviation of the measured values compared to the ideal PSF without aberrations and, in a preferred embodiment, are corrected by means of an element (adaptive optics unit).”…”In addition, the data of the evaluation unit 21 are compared with an ideal PSF (Detail A) and the resulting correction wavefront delivered to the control of the adaptive optics unit 17) [Par 28 and 86-87],
But Singer does not explicitly disclose, controlling a variable magnification optical system included in a detection system, such that an image by light from a sample on which illumination light by an illumination optical system is focused, the predetermined times of a width of the region, which is a length in a longer direction when the lengths are different from each other, a lower limit of the predetermined times being 0.6 to 0.7, and an upper limit of the predetermined times being 0.9 to 1.0.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Wolleschensky teaches, on Fig. 5, that it is desirable in microscopes controlling a variable magnification optical system included in a detection system such that an image by light from a sample on which illumination light by an illumination optical system is focused (zoom optical system 27 is controlled by control device C] [Col 10, Lines 15-25].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Singer with Wollschensky in order to provide, optimal adjustments of the image to the detector, as taught by Wollschensky [Col 10, Lines 15-25].
The teaching of Wolleschensky would inherently comprise, controlling the variable magnification optical system such that the size of the image on the image plane is predetermined times of a width of a region in which the detection units of the detector are arranged, this being reasonably assumed from the disclosure of, “The zoom optical system 27 allows the image 17 to be optimally adjusted to the expansion of the input of the detector device 19” [Col 10, Lines 15-25]. The adjustment of the zoom optical system would inherently require the use of a magnification control unit, and its adjustment to the expansion of the input of the detector device would inherently make the resulting magnified image (image 17) a multiple of the width of the detection unit region (input of detector device 19 which consists of multiple fiber optic widths in a bundle 19) [Col 8, Lines 60-65].
But Singer in view of Wollschensky does not explicitly disclose, the predetermined times of a width of the region, which is a length in a longer direction when the lengths are different from each other, a lower limit of the predetermined times being 0.6 to 0.7, and an upper limit of the predetermined times being 0.9 to 1.0.
However, since Wollschensky teaches, on Fig. 5, the explicit optimal adjustment of the output of the magnification system to fill the input area of the detection device [Col 10, Lines 15-25 and Col 11, Lines 35-45], controlling the length and width of said output of the magnification system would have been with the ability of one ordinary skill in the art, and that the ratio of the length to the width (“image…expansion”) [Col 10, Lines 15-25] is a variable with a known result, optimally filling the input area of the detection device. Further one of ordinary skill would have been would have been motivated to do so in order to provide, additional signal strength [Col 11, Lines 35-45]. Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Singer in view of Wollschensky such that, the predetermined times of a width of the region, which is a length in a longer direction when the lengths are different from each other, a lower limit of the predetermined times being 0.6 to 0.7, and an upper limit of the predetermined times being 0.9 to 1.0, in order to provide additional signal strength, as taught by Wollschensky [Col 11, Lines 35-45].
Claim(s) 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of Tamano (US 20170351074 A1).
Re Claim 9, Singer discloses the microscope according to claim 1.
But Singer does not explicitly disclose, further comprising: a light shield unit that includes, on the image plane of the detection optical system, an opening having a size of 0.2 times or more and 10 times or less of a resolution on a side of the image plane of the detection optical system; a light reception unit that receives light from the sample passing through the opening; and a second image data generation unit that reads a light amount of the light received by the light reception unit in synchronization with the scan between the illumination region and the sample and generates second image data of the sample.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Tamano teaches, on Fig. 17, that it is desirable in microscopes for, a light shield unit (Fig. 17: shielding member 29) [Par 88]; a light reception unit (photo detector 12) that receives light from the sample passing through the opening; and a second image data generation unit (Fig. 17: “Specifically, the controller 33 generates a new image of a specimen from a plurality of scanning images (transmission images) that are obtained in respective states in which the positions of the aperture of the light shielding member 29 are different from each other.”) [Par 88-] that reads a light amount of the light received by the light reception unit in synchronization with the scan between the illumination region and the sample and generates second image data of the sample (Shielding member 37 for exposure dependent multi-imaging) [Par 88-95 ].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Singer with Tamano in order to provide imaging in different aperture states of the shielding member, as taught by Tamano [Par 88]
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the mask includes, on the image plane of the detection optical system, an opening having a size of 0.2 times or more and 10 times or less of a resolution on a side of the image plane of the detection optical system
However, Tamano teaches, on Fig. 15 and 17, that it is desirable in microscopes to collect images wherein the shielding member (Fig. 15 : adjustable aperture 25 or Fig. 17: shielding member 29 ) are in different states and a further embodiment that includes a shielding unit that includes a shield and an aperture (“includes a light shielding unit 37a and an aperture 37b, instead of the light shielding member 29. In this case, the controller 33 may rotate the light shielding member 37 by 120 degrees at a time, as illustrated in FIG. 23A to FIG. 23C, may obtain a transmission image in each state, and may generate a new transmission image in which contrast is emphasized from the three obtained transmission images.”)[Par 95]. Therefore Tamano teaches at least the adjustment of the aperture size of a shielding member [Par 82], and its status as a Result Effective Variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been more than capable of adjusting the size of said aperture such that it is between 0.2 and 10 times the resolution of the imaging device (in this case the photodetector 12), in order to obtain a satisfactory transmission image [Par 87].
See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of with Singer in view of Tamano in order to provide a satisfactory transmission image, as taught by Tamano [Par 87].
Re Claim 16, Singer discloses the microscope according to claim 13.
But Singer does not explicitly disclose, further comprising: a light shield unit that includes, on the image plane of the detection optical system, an opening having a size of 0.2 times or more and 10 times or less of a resolution on a side of the image plane of the detection optical system; a light reception unit that receives light from the sample passing through the opening; and a second image data generation unit that reads a light amount of the light received by the light reception unit in synchronization with the scan between the illumination region and the sample and generates second image data of the sample.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Tamano teaches, on Fig. 17, that it is desirable in microscopes for, a light shield unit (Fig. 17: shielding member 29) [Par 88]; a light reception unit (photo detector 12) that receives light from the sample passing through the opening; and a second image data generation unit (Fig. 17: “Specifically, the controller 33 generates a new image of a specimen from a plurality of scanning images (transmission images) that are obtained in respective states in which the positions of the aperture of the light shielding member 29 are different from each other.”) [Par 88-] that reads a light amount of the light received by the light reception unit in synchronization with the scan between the illumination region and the sample and generates second image data of the sample (Shielding member 37 for exposure dependent multi-imaging) [Par 88-95 ].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Singer with Tamano in order to provide imaging in different aperture states of the shielding member, as taught by Tamano [Par 88]
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the mask includes, on the image plane of the detection optical system, an opening having a size of 0.2 times or more and 10 times or less of a resolution on a side of the image plane of the detection optical system
However, Tamano teaches, on Fig. 15 and 17, that it is desirable in microscopes to collect images wherein the shielding member (Fig. 15 : adjustable aperture 25 or Fig. 17: shielding member 29 ) are in different states and a further embodiment that includes a shielding unit that includes a shield and an aperture (“includes a light shielding unit 37a and an aperture 37b, instead of the light shielding member 29. In this case, the controller 33 may rotate the light shielding member 37 by 120 degrees at a time, as illustrated in FIG. 23A to FIG. 23C, may obtain a transmission image in each state, and may generate a new transmission image in which contrast is emphasized from the three obtained transmission images.”) [Par 95]. Therefore, Tamano teaches at least the adjustment of the aperture size of a shielding member [Par 82], and its status as a Result Effective Variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been more than capable of adjusting the size of said aperture such that it is between 0.2 and 10 times the resolution of the imaging device (in this case the photodetector 12), in order to obtain a satisfactory transmission image [Par 87].
See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of with Singer in view of Tamano in order to provide a satisfactory transmission image, as taught by Tamano [Par 87].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pattison (US 20210157114 A1) teaches a contrast microscope.
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 RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights