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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment that was filed on 04/19/2024 is entered.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:a. Optional features in claim wording:
the expressions " substantially” and “optionally " employed in throughout the claims renders the subsequent features optional. While conferring no limitation to the subject-matter of the claims, the inclusion of such optional features contravenes the requirements of clarity and conciseness, as unnecessary wording is present in the claim and as the reader is left in doubt as to the exact scope for which protection is sought. Please consider revising this phrase.
b. Inconsistency between the: claims and the disclosure:
the specification fails to specifically disclose “a substantial component” in claim 4, the claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought and that said claims are supported by the disclosure, since they imply that the invention may depart from the subject-matter recited in the claim(s). Please consider revising and simplifying claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12, 15-16, 21, 23-24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seibel et al. (US PUB 2009/0208072; herein after “Seibel” in related examples and embodiments) in view of Sung (US PUB 2019/0163132).
Regarding claim 1, Seibel teaches a microscopic imaging method for three-dimensional imaging of an object (an object of interest 1) (see para. [0010] and [0031]), comprising: flowing a three-dimensional object (a biological cell 1) through a microfluidics channel (a tube 22, where the biological object 1 is contained in aqueous environment 2, para. [0031], FIG. 1) such that the object position is varied relative to an imaging optical axis (202) (i.e., a method for 3D imaging of cells in an optical tomography system is provided including moving a biological object relatively to a microscope objective to present varying angles of view, see para. [0010] and as shown in FIGS. 1-5, para. [0029], [0045] and [0058]); illuminating the object with an illumination optical system (a radiation source 29) as the object flows through the microfluidics channel (i.e., the system provides an optical tomography process including separate imaging stages along the same pathway, para. [0067], as shown at least in FIGS. 4-6, para. [0058]); and capturing light-field information (e.g., a UV camera 48 is used for acquiring images of the object of interest, para. [0045], FIG. 2) of the illuminated object with an imaging optical system (an optical tomographic imaging system 11, para. [0031] and [0035]) as the object flows through the microfluidics channel (i.e., Radiation transmitted through, scattered by, or secondarily emitted by the biological object and captured by the microscope objective is sensed with a camera to record images from a plurality of differing view angles (e.g., capturing light-field information). A plurality of pseudo projection images of the biological object from the sensed radiation is formed and the plurality of pseudo projections is reconstructed to form a 3D image of the cell, para. [0010]).
Seibel teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of capturing light-field information.
However, in a related field of endeavor Sung teaches method that allow performing three-dimensional optical tomography. Specifically, the systems and methods record a multitude of projection images in a single instance by using angular multiplexing of illumination and light field imaging, para. [0041].
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 Seibel such that to record a multitude of projection images using angular multiplexing of illumination and light field imaging as taught by Sung, for the purpose of acquiring sample's structural and chemical information, also allow capturing the three-dimensional tomogram without motion artifact and missing angle artefact, both of which are common in existing optical tomography techniques.
Regarding claim 2, Seibel according to claim 1 further teaches the captured light field is a Fourier light field (para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 4, Seibel according to claim 1 further teaches the illuminating of the three-dimensional object (1) is performed with a light sheet (e.g., light generated from DUV light sources 30, 31, para. [0037]) generated by the illumination optical system (29) (i.e., example, the radiation source 29 comprises multiple sources 30, 31 transmitting at least two selected wavelengths (light-sheet), para. [0029], FIG. 1), optionally wherein an optical axis of the light sheet (optical axis of the sources 30, 31) extends in a direction having a substantial component parallel to an imaging optical axis (optical axis of the optical system 11) (i.e., laser illumination parallel to the optical axis is used, para. [0039], as shown in FIG.1).
Regarding claim 6, Seibel according to claim 4 further teaches the optical axis of the light sheet (optical axis of the sources 30, 31) is parallel to the imaging optical axis (optical axis of the optical system 11) (i.e., laser illumination parallel to the optical axis is used, para. [0039], as shown in FIG.1).
Regarding claim 7, Seibel according to claim 4 further teaches the optical axis of the light sheet (optical axis of the sources 30, 31) is tilted (90º) with respect to the imaging optical axis (optical axis of the optical system 11) (as shown in FIG.2).
Regarding claim 8, Seibel according to claim 4 further teaches the light sheet illuminates a substantially planar portion of the object, optionally wherein at least two different substantially planar portions of the object are illuminated and the respective light fields thereof imaged (i.e., commercial microscopes (of confocal, deconvolution, and multiphoton excitation varieties) rely on fluorescence for building up multiple planar slices for generating 3D images, para. [0006] and [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, Seibel according to claim 4 further teaches the light sheet illuminates the entirety of the object (i.e., illuminating the object 1 with DUV light (entirety) at a first wavelength, as shown in FIG. 6, para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 12, Seibel according to claim 8 further teaches the at least two different portions of the object, or at least two different objects are illuminated by varying the relative position of the light sheet and the object or objects, wherein the illumination position is varied relative to an imaging optical axis, wherein the light illumination position is varied by scanning the light sheet across the object or objects (i.e., the system provides an optical tomography process including separate imaging stages (611-614) along the same pathway. A plurality of biological objects is transported along a pathway 25 to the first stage 611. At least one object of the plurality of objects is illuminated with visible light at the first stage 611 and the second stage 612, para. [0067], FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 15, Seibel according to claim 1 further teaches the illumination optical system comprises a laser light source (i.e., laser light sources 30, 31, FIG. 1, para. [0029] and [0038]).
Regarding claim 16, Seibel according to claim 1 further teaches the microfluidics channel forms part of a flow cytometer (i.e., (2) individual cells are being imaged or possibly analyzed (via flow cytometry) which may allow for diffraction measurement at multiple perspectives, para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 21, Seibel according to claim 1 further teaches the smallest dimension of the object is 100 µm or less (e.g., object like biological cells (1) such as prokaryotic cells (like bacteria) measuring 1 to 10 micrometers (μm) and eukaryotic cells (like animal and plant cells) typically ranging from 10 to 100 μm, para. [0048], FIG. 3 and biological cell size - Google Search).
Regarding claim 23, Seibel according to claim 1 further teaches processing the captured light-field information to generate a three- dimensional image of the object (e.g., a UV camera 48 is used for acquiring images of the object of interest to generate 3D images, para. [0045], FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Seibel according to claim 23 further teaches a first step of generating one or more three-dimensional images corresponding one or more different substantially planar portions of the object, and further comprising a second step of combining a plurality of three-dimensional images corresponding to a plurality of substantially planar portions through the object to generate a composite three- dimensional image of the object (i.e., emit fluorescence signals for 3D live cell imaging, because commercial microscopes (of confocal, deconvolution, and multiphoton excitation varieties) rely on fluorescence for building up multiple planar slices (planar portions) for generating 3D images, para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 29, Seibel according to claim 1 further teaches a microscopic imaging apparatus (i.e., a system for 3D microscopic imaging of cells across axial depths in an optical tomography system FIGS. 1-3) comprising: a microfluidics channel (22) through which a three-dimensional object (1) is configured to flow such that the object position is varied relative to an imaging optical axis (i.e., a method for 3D imaging of cells in an optical tomography system is provided including moving a biological object relatively to a microscope objective to present varying angles of view, see para. [0010] and as shown in FIGS. 1-5, para. [0029], [0045] and [0058]); an illumination optical system (29) configured to illuminate a three-dimensional object as the object flows through the microfluidics channel (i.e., the system provides an optical tomography process including separate imaging stages along the same pathway, para. [0067], as shown at least in FIGS. 4-6, para. [0058]); and an imaging optical system (11) configured to capture light-field information of the illuminated object (para. [0031] and [0035]) as the object flows through the microfluidics channel (e.g., a UV camera 48 is used for acquiring images of the object of interest, para. [0045], FIG. 2, also see, para. [0010]).
Seibel teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of capturing light-field information.
However, in a related field of endeavor Sung teaches method that allow performing three-dimensional optical tomography. Specifically, the systems and methods record a multitude of projection images in a single instance by using angular multiplexing of illumination and light field imaging, para. [0041].
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 Seibel such that to record a multitude of projection images using angular multiplexing of illumination and light field imaging as taught by Sung, for the purpose of acquiring sample's structural and chemical information, also allow capturing the three-dimensional tomogram without motion artifact and missing angle artefact, both of which are common in existing optical tomography techniques.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 17-20 and 26 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 3, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding imaging optical system comprises a micro lens array arranged to focus images the illuminated object from different viewing angles and the micro lens array is arranged at a back focal plane of the imaging optical system.
Claims 17-20 depend upon allowable claim 3.
Regarding claim 26, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding illuminating the three-dimensional object with one or more further light sheets generated by the illumination optical system and capturing light-field information of the object illuminated with the one or more further light sheets, wherein the light sheet and one or more further light sheets comprise different coloured light, optionally wherein the light sheet and one or more further light sheets are translated or rotated relative each other so as to reduce overlap.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ozcan et al. (US PUB 20170153106) teaches “an optofluidic tomographic microscope, which can perform 3D imaging of specimen flowing within a microfluidic channel”, paragraph [0142], Figure 3.
Callahan et al. (US PUB 20110216953) teaches “vessels equipped with multiple microfluidic channels and chambers for microscopic object manipulation and generate 3D images.
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
September 18, 2025