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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 26-33 and 43 in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 31, as currently written, is improperly dependent upon itself. The examiner believes this is a typo and claim 31 should be dependent upon claim 30. However, if the examiner is assumption is incorrect, this issue would be elevated into a rejection under 35 USC 112(b) for having multiple antecedent basis errors. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret claim 31 as dependent from claim 30.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that claim 32 and claim 33 are similar in language, including step iii. However, the examiner notes that claim 32 is being interpreted as requiring ALL three limitations of using the captured plurality of TSI's to generate Lateral Motion of Backscattering Images (LMBI), cumulative Shadow Gradient Pattern Image (SGPI) and Lateral Phase Flow Image (LPFI). This is different than the claim language in claim 33 which only requires AT LEAST ONE of Lateral Motion of Backscattering Images (LMBI), cumulative Shadow Gradient Pattern Image (SGPI) and Lateral Phase Flow Image (LPFI) being generated from the TSI’s. The examiner notes that while this does not appear to raise any issues presently, the applicant may wish to clarify whether they wish the language to reflect all or at least one of Lateral Motion of Backscattering Images (LMBI), cumulative Shadow Gradient Pattern Image (SGPI) and Lateral Phase Flow Image (LPFI) being generated.
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 29, 32, and 33 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.
The term “generally” in claim 29 line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The requisite degree of how collimated the light must be is thus unable to be determined by use of the term “generally”, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the at least one illuminator" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the actuator" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the at least one illuminator" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the actuator" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 26-28 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa (US 20150144769 A1) in view of Fereidouni (US 20210382318 A1) and Hartrumpf (US 20160072993 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Nozawa teaches a system for in situ characterizing surface/volume irregularities (SViR) of a sample or tissue, comprising:
a. a housing [0029 “inspection apparatus”] defining longitudinal axis and comprising a plate [Fig. 1 Item 30 “stage”] containing said sample or tissue [Fig. 1 Item 20];
b. at least one radiation source (RS) unit [Fig. 1 Item 10 “light source”] operably coupled to the housing and configured to be selectively rotatable about said longitudinal axis [0033 “…the illuminating angle of the illumination light can be changed by rotating the light source 10 around the Y-axis”], the at least one RS being sized and configured to illuminate said sample or tissue in a variable manner at one or more predetermined angles relative to the longitudinal axis of the housing [0033 “illuminating angle”];
d. an imaging module disposed distal to the TCP [Fig. 1 Item 11 “detector”], sized and configured to capture a Temporal Shadow Image (TSI) above the sample or tissue [This is an intended use recitation. The examiner notes the system of Nozawa is capable of capturing multiple images from various angles of the detector and/or light source].
Nozawa teaches a plate containing the sample, but fails to teach a transparent contact plate (TCP) for positioning over a portion of said sample or tissue.
Fereidouni teaches a transparent contact plate (TCP) for positioning over a portion of said sample or tissue [Fig. 3 Item 308, para. 0049 “…a waveguide 308 in the form of a microscope slide coverslip, wherein the stained tissue sample 102 is placed against or in proximity to a surface of the waveguide 308”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Nozawa and incorporate the teachings of Fereidouni to include a transparent contact plate (TCP) for positioning over a portion of said sample or tissue. Doing so configures the system to protect the sample, flatten the sample to keep it contained and immobile, and improve optical quality and clarity ensuring light rays pass through the sample and cover slip and are refracted correctly.
Nozawa teaches at least one RS unit, but fails to teach one or more lenses are disposed distal to the at least one RS unit.
Hartrumpf teaches one or more lenses [Fig. 2 Item 21 “objective”] are disposed distal to the at least one RS unit [Fig. 2 Item 3 “light source”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Nozawa and incorporate the teachings of Hartrumpf to include one or more lenses are disposed distal to the at least one RS unit. Doing so configures the system to optimize the desired magnification and focus to allow for a more precise examination of the sample.
Regarding claim 27, Nozawa, Fereidouni, and Hartrumpf teach the system of claim 26, wherein Fereidouni teaches a TCP [Fereidouni Fig. 3 Item 308], but fails to teach at least one polarizer filter positioned at one or more selected locations selected from between said RS unit and said TCP, between said TCP and said imaging module.
However, a different but similar embodiment of Fereidouni teaches at least one polarizer filter [Fig. 4 Item 122] positioned between said RS unit [Fig. 4 Item 120] and said TCP [Fig. 4 Item 102 “stained tissue sample” modified to be included into a “waveguide” from Fig. 3 Item 308].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiments of Fereidouni Figures 3 and 4 to include at least one polarizer filter positioned between said RS unit and said TCP. Doing so configures the system to reduce reflection, enhance color saturation, and improve contrast when observing the sample.
Regarding claim 28, Nozawa, Fereidouni, and Hartrumpf teach the system of claim 26, wherein the at least one RS unit [Fig. 1 Item 10] comprises at least one illuminator [0030 “The light source 10 is, for example, a linear light source that emits illumination light having a linear shape”] operably coupled to the housing [0029 “inspection apparatus”], operable to selectively vary at least one of: angle [0033 “…the respective angles of the light source 10 and the detector 11 are changeable”], intensity, and spectrum of illumination.
Regarding claim 43, Nozawa, Fereidouni, and Hartrumpf teach the system of claim 26, wherein said sample of tissue comprises a portion of at least one of: biological tissue [Fereidouni 0007 “The disclosed embodiments provide a system that images a tissue sample”], fruit or vegetable.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa, Fereidouni, and Hartrumpf as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Glensbjerg (US 20160103058 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Nozawa, Fereidouni, and Hartrumpf teach the system of claim 26, wherein said RS unit is configured to emit a generally collimated light [Nozawa 0030 “The light source 10 is, for example, a linear light source that emits illumination light having a linear shape”], but fail to teach the collimated light having divergence angle not exceeding 20°.
Glensbjerg teaches the collimated light having divergence angle not exceeding 20° [0043 “…the collimated light from the first light source may deviate from collimated light with a deviation angle less than 10 degrees, more preferably less than 5 degrees”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Nozawa, Fereidouni, and Hartrumpf and incorporate the teachings of Glensbjerg to include the collimated light having divergence angle not exceeding 20°. Doing so configures the system to ensure a more stable and uniform beam shape, which is crucial for accurate measurement/observation of the sample and its characteristics.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa, Fereidouni, and Hartrumpf as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Tam (US 20170304008 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Nozawa, Fereidouni, and Hartrumpf teach the system of claim 26, wherein the at least one RS unit is configured to perform rotation around the longitudinal axis [Nozawa 0033], but fails to teach the at least one RS unit is coupled to a rotatable annulus.
Tam teaches the at least one RS unit is coupled to a rotatable annulus [0016 “Radiation source 11 and radiation detector 13 are mounted on gantry 14 such that they may be rotated through 360 degrees while maintaining the same physical relationship therebetween”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Nozawa, Fereidouni, and Hartrumpf and incorporate the teachings of Tam to include the at least one RS unit is coupled to a rotatable annulus. Doing so configures the system to radiation source/emitter maintains the same physical relationship between various components/surfaces to ensure accurate measurements/observations are being made, as recognized by Tam para. 0016.
Regarding claim 31, Nozawa, Fereidouni, Hartrumpf, and Tam teach the system of claim 31, wherein the rotatable annulus is operably coupled to an actuator [Tam 0021 “rotation drive”], configured to selectively effect at least one of: annulus rotation [Tam 0021 “…radiation source 11 and radiation detector 13 are rotated by rotation drive 17…”], annulus translation relative to the TCP along the longitudinal axis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 0730-1630 ET.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)272-4233. 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.
/JONATHAN M HANEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JUSTIN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights