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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment of 01/09/2026.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The existing rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are overcome by amendment.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s initial argument is that the claims are directed to a process for operating an imaging system, however, this argument is not persuasive. Most of the steps actually claimed are for simulating imaging systems, evaluating possible choices of parameters, and selecting a set of parameters, with an additional step at the end of “providing” an imaging system with those parameters hoping that the imaging system provided will perform better as a result of choosing those values for the parameters. Steps of operating the imaging system to, for example, image a sample are entirely absent from the claims.
Applicant’s second argument is that the claims are directed to a technical process for configuring and optimally operating an imaging system rather than to abstract mathematics, however, this argument is not persuasive. In particular, performing mathematical calculations can be very technical and may be related in purpose to a field of technology while still falling within the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Applicant’s third argument is that claims 1 and 14 amount to significantly more than the judicial exception due to the limitation of providing an imaging system of one of two types, however, this is not persuasive. As discussed in the previous action, claims that recite a judicial exception (such as assigning hair designs to balance head shape or selecting a desired set of parameters for an imaging system) followed by instructions to “apply it” or the equivalent (such as using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair or providing an imaging system configured with the desired set of parameters) generally fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), even if performing the judicial exception affects how one chooses to “apply it” (such as changing the final style of the hair or the parameters of the imaging system provided).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s first argument is that Mertz does not teach calculating the optical phase transfer function, the phase sensitivity parameter, or SNR directly from the phase sensitivity, however, this argument is moot. Mertz is not relied on to teach the limitations challenged in this argument.
Applicant’s second argument is that Mertz does not teach performing analysis on simulations with multiple configurations, however, this argument is not persuasive. Note that FIG. 8C and 8D of Mertz show multiple configurations in a way that compares them.
Applicant’s third set of arguments is that Mertz does not teach quantitatively derived phase sensitivity as related to illumination angle or the analytical calculations of the claims, however, these arguments are moot, as the more quantitative and analytical aspects of the claimed calculations are taught by Robles.
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:
the imaging system in claims 1 and 14 and all their dependent claims, which is interpreted as a quantitative oblique back-illumination microscopy system (paragraph 16) or an endoscopic oblique back illumination imaging system (paragraph 17).
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.
Claim 14, 16, and 20 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 14 recites “to image the sample with increased phase sensitivity and SNR relative to a default imaging configuration”, but it is unclear what makes an imaging configuration “a default imaging configuration” or how one would know about the phase sensitivity or SNR of such a default imaging configuration, and the term does not appear to be used in the specification. The term is interpreted broadly as applying to any imaging configuration.
Claims 16 and 20 are indefinite due to depending on indefinite claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 7-11, 14, 16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Interpretation of the claim:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art, with the exception of the imaging system, which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as described above. See MPEP 2111.
Claim 1 generally recites choosing first parameters; simulating scattering properties; determining a first signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) from the first simulation by calculating a first optical phase transfer function and multiplying its slope by the square root of the number of simulated photons entering a simulated collector; choosing second parameters; simulating scattering properties; determining a second SNR from the second simulation by calculating a second optical phase transfer function and multiplying its slope by the square root of the number of simulated photons entering a simulated collector; determining a desired SNR; and selecting parameters before providing one of two types of imaging system, in either case with the selected parameters to optimize the configuration.
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites choosing, simulating, extracting, determining, calculating, and selecting in ways that encompass embodiments that are mental processes or mathematical calculations, both types of abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The only additional element in claim 1 beyond the abstract idea is providing a quantitative oblique back-illumination microscopy (qOBM) imaging system or an endoscopic oblique back illumination imaging system, in either case configured with the desired set of parameters, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Claims that recite a judicial exception (such as assigning hair designs to balance head shape or selecting a desired set of parameters for an imaging system) followed by instructions to “apply it” or the equivalent (such as using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair or providing an imaging system configured with the desired set of parameters) generally fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The hoped-for outcome of an optimized imaging configuration does not add substantially to eligibility over the existing limitations regarding a “desired SNR” and a “desired set of parameters”.
Step 2B:
In addition to the above, the practice of providing an imaging system of either type with a desired set of parameters intended to optimize performance is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Discussion of dependent claims 3, 7-11, and 21
Claims 3 and 21 introduce further mental processes or mathematical calculations taken as part of practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 7-11 recite further limitations on the first set of parameters and second set of parameters used in simulating. These claims merely add detail to an existing step of the mathematical calculation of step 1, which does not make that step non-abstract.
These claims also do not recite any additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 14:
Interpretation of the claim:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art, with the exception of the imaging system, which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as described above. See MPEP 2111.
Claim 14 generally recites simulating imaging a sample by choosing parameters, simulating light scattering, and determining an SNR of the simulation by calculating an optical phase transfer function and multiplying its slope by the square root of the number of simulated photons entering a simulated collector; determining a desired SNR; and selecting desired parameters before providing one of two types of imaging system with desired parameters to increase phase sensitivity and SNR relative to a configuration.
Step 1:
Claim 14 recites a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 14 recites simulating, choosing, determining, calculating, extracting, and selecting in ways that encompass embodiments that are mental processes or mathematical calculations, both types of abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The only additional element in claim 14 beyond the abstract idea is providing a quantitative oblique back-illumination microscopy (qOBM) imaging system or an endoscopic oblique back illumination imaging system, in either case configured with the desired se t of parameters, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Claims that recite a judicial exception (such as assigning hair designs to balance head shape or selecting a desired set of parameters for an imaging system) followed by instructions to “apply it” or the equivalent (such as using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair or providing an imaging system configured with the desired set of parameters) generally fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The hoped-for outcome of an increased phase sensitivity and SNR does not add substantially to eligibility over the existing limitations regarding a “desired SNR” and a “desired set of parameters”.
Step 2B:
In addition to the above, the practice of providing an imaging system of either type with a desired set of parameters is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Discussion of dependent claims 16 and 20:
Claim 16 introduces further mental processes or mathematical calculations taken as part of practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites further limitations on the first set of parameters and second set of parameters used in simulating. This claim merely adds detail to an existing step of the mathematical calculation of step 14, which does not make that step non-abstract.
These claims also do not recite any additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The courts have decided that natural phenomena, laws of nature, and abstract intellectual concepts, such as mental processes and mathematical calculations, are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work (Gottschalk v Benson, 409 U.S.63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). It is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements, such as a data input or detection step, does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank, 573 US, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ.2d 1976 (2014)).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-11, 14, 16, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertz (US Patent Publication 20150087902) in view of Robles (US Patent Publication 20210025818).
Regarding claim 1, Mertz teaches a method of determining a desired set of parameters for an imaging system to image a sample (abstract, using phase contrast imaging), the method comprising:
choosing a first set of parameters for the imaging system (paragraphs 152-153 list fiber-probe separation, illumination diameter and illumination numerical aperture as examples of parameters);
simulating light scattering properties of the sample when imaging the sample using the imaging system (paragraph 151,standard Monte Carlo simulations) having the first set of parameters to provide a first simulated optical response (FIG. 8C, one of the curves plotted);
determining a first signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the first simulated optical response by: identifying a first number of photons collected at a simulated collector of the imaging system when imaging the sample using the imaging system having the first set of parameters, the first number of photons represented as "N1" (FIG. 8C, one of the curves plotted);
choosing a second set of parameters for the imaging system (paragraphs 152-153 list fiber-probe separation, illumination diameter and illumination numerical aperture as examples of parameters);
simulating light scattering properties of the sample when imaging the sample using the imaging system (paragraph 151,standard Monte Carlo simulations) having the second set of parameters to provide a second simulated optical response (FIG. 8C, another of the curves plotted);
determining a second SNR of the second simulated optical response by: identifying a second number of photons collected at the simulated collector of the imaging system when imaging the sample using the imaging system having the second set of parameters, the second number of photons represented a s "N2" (FIG. 8C, another one of the curves plotted);
selecting a desired set of parameters, the desired set of parameters being one of the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters corresponding to the desired SNR (paragraph 150, final sentence); and
providing a quantitative oblique back-illumination microscopy (qOBM) imaging system or an endoscopic oblique back illumination imaging system, in either case configured with the desired set of parameters (FIG. 23 (A) and (C)) to cause the respective imaging system to operate in an imaging configuration optimized for imaging the sample (paragraph 12, useful improvements).
The simulations of Mertz only indirectly teach determining a first and second signal-to-noise ratio while simulating the imaging system (Paragraph 106 points out that shot noise is the most relevant form of noise that affects the SNR of this kind of optical system and that SNR can be maximized by increasing the number of photons detected. Paragraph 106 also mentions types of cameras that maximize the SNR and provide an estimate of the pixel well capacity of particular types of cameras. Paragraph 151 describes a standard Monte Carlo method used to simulate the optical system, which is used to determine, among other things, the intensity of light detected for particular configurations of the system, which determines the SNR of the corresponding optical system due to shot noise, as described in paragraph 106.), so does not explicitly teach calculating a first optical phase transfer function for the imaging system when imaging the sample using the imaging system having the first set of parameters;
extracting a first phase sensitivity from the first optical phase transfer function, where the first phase sensitivity is proportional to the first optical phase transfer function's central slope and is represented as "m1";
extracting, from the first number of photons collected, a first noise level, the first noise level corresponding to Poisson noise and represented as "sqrt(N1)", where the first SNR is given by m1*sqrt(N1);
calculating a second optical phase transfer function for the imaging system when imaging the sample using the imaging system having the second set of parameters;
extracting a second phase sensitivity from the second optical phase transfer function, where the second phase sensitivity is proportional to the second optical phase transfer function's central slope and is represented as "m2";
extracting, from the second number of photons collected, a second noise level, the second noise level corresponding to Poisson noise and represented as "sqrt(N2)", where the second SNR is given by m2*sqrt(N2),
although it is clear from the phase contrast in the results that Mertz shows (e.g., in FIG. 10, bottom row) that the systems produced result in substantially nonzero phase contrast sensitivity, and the conclusion reached in paragraph 154 that the simulations show oblique incidence evidences that Mertz considered the sensitivity to phase contrasts when performing the simulations.
In the same field of endeavor of back-illuminated quantitative phase imaging, Robles does teach calculating a first optical phase transfer function for the imaging system when imaging the sample using the imaging system having the first set of parameters (paragraph 77, equation 9);
extracting a first phase sensitivity from the first optical phase transfer function, where the first phase sensitivity is proportional to the first optical phase transfer function's central slope and is represented as "m1" (paragraph 77, equations 10-11 describe the relationship between the phase to be measured and the intensity of the DPC image and optical phase transfer function of the imaging system);
calculating a second optical phase transfer function for the imaging system when imaging the sample using the imaging system having the second set of parameters (paragraph 77, equation 9); and
extracting a second phase sensitivity from the second optical phase transfer function, where the second phase sensitivity is proportional to the second optical phase transfer function's central slope and is represented as "m2" (paragraph 77, equations 10-11 describe the relationship between the phase to be measured and the intensity of the DPC image and optical phase transfer function of the imaging system). By using optical phase transfer functions, Robles is able to better characterize the imaging system and relate the angular distribution of source illumination (and the breadth of the illumination intensity in angle space) to the expected imaging properties (see paragraph 73 of Robles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the simulations of Mertz with the mathematics of Robles to use the simulation results regarding angular distributions of light to characterize the properties of the imaging system under design.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, while combining Mertz and Robles, extract, from the first number of photons collected, a first noise level, the first noise level corresponding to Poisson noise and represented as "sqrt(N1)" (see paragraph 106 of Mertz. Note that shot noise is based on photons arriving according to a Poisson distribution. See Paschotta (Non-Patent Literature “Shot Noise”).), where the first SNR is given by m1*sqrt(N1) (this is true regardless of whether Mertz explicitly calculated it or not); and extract, from the second number of photons collected, a second noise level, the second noise level corresponding to Poisson noise and represented as "sqrt(N2)", where the second SNR is given by m2*sqrt(N2) (see paragraph 106. Note that shot noise is based on photons arriving according to a Poisson distribution. See Paschotta.), where the first SNR is given by m1*sqrt(N1) (this is true regardless of whether Mertz explicitly calculated it or not) to gain the predictable benefit of determining the adequacy of the system under consideration to properly image samples at an acceptable SNR, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Mertz, as modified by Robles, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Mertz further teaches that simulating light scattering properties of the sample when imaging the sample using the imaging system having the first set of parameters and simulating light scattering properties of the sample when imaging the sample using the imaging system having the second set of parameters each comprises simulating a measurement of an oblique angle of scattered photons incident a detector of the imaging sample when imaging the sample using the imaging system having the first and second sets of parameters, respectively (FIG. 8B has a graph of the tilt of the photons that were incident on the detector).
Regarding claim 7, Mertz, as modified by Robles, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Mertz further teaches that each of the first set of parameters and second set of parameters comprises an illumination wavelength (paragraph 108 lists wavelength as a parameter that can be varied).
Regarding claim 8, Mertz, as modified by Robles, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Mertz further teaches that each of the first set of parameters and second set of parameters comprises a lateral separation distance (paragraph 152, fiber-probe separation distances).
Regarding claim 9, Mertz, as modified by Robles, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Mertz further teaches that each of the first set of parameters and second set of parameters comprises an axial separation distance (FIG. 26) between an MMF (paragraph 111) and GRIN lens (paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 10, Mertz, as modified by Robles, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Mertz further teaches that each of the first set of parameters and second set of parameters comprises a MMF illuminating angle (FIG. 8C).
Regarding claim 11, Mertz, as modified by Robles, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Mertz further teaches that each of the first set of parameters and second set of parameters comprises a MMF NA (FIG. 8D).
Regarding claim 14, Mertz teaches a method of determining a desired set of parameters for an imaging system to image a sample (abstract, using phase contrast imaging), the method comprising:
simulating imaging a sample, the simulating comprising one or more iterations of (FIG. 8C, note the one or more curves):
choosing a unique set of parameters for the imaging system (paragraphs 152-153 list fiber-probe separation, illumination diameter and illumination numerical aperture as examples of parameters);
simulating light scattering properties of the sample when imaging the sample using the imaging system having the unique set of parameters to provide a simulated optical response (paragraph 151, standard Monte Carlo simulations); and
determining a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the simulated optical response by: identifying a number of photons collected at a simulated collector of the imaging system when simulating imaging the sample, the number of photons represented as "N" (FIG. 8C, one of the curves plotted); and
determining a desired SNR from the determined SNRs (paragraph 150, final sentence);
selecting a desired set of parameters, the desired set of parameters being the unique set of parameters corresponding to the desired SNR (paragraph 150, final sentence); and
providing a quantitative oblique back-illumination microscopy (qOBM) imaging system or an endoscopic oblique back illumination imaging system, in either case configured with the desired set of parameters to image the sample with increased phase sensitivity and SNR relative to a default imaging configuration (FIG. 23 (A) and (C)).
The simulations of Mertz only indirectly teach determining a first and second signal-to-noise ratio while simulating the imaging system (Paragraph 106 points out that shot noise is the most relevant form of noise that affects the SNR of this kind of optical system and that SNR can be maximized by increasing the number of photons detected. Paragraph 106 also mentions types of cameras that maximize the SNR and provide an estimate of the pixel well capacity of particular types of cameras. Paragraph 151 describes a standard Monte Carlo method used to simulate the optical system, which is used to determine, among other things, the intensity of light detected for particular configurations of the system, which determines the SNR of the corresponding optical system due to shot noise, as described in paragraph 106.), so does not explicitly teach calculating an optical phase transfer function for the imaging system when imaging the sample using the imaging system having the unique set of parameters;
extracting a phase sensitivity from the optical phase transfer function, where the phase sensitivity is proportional to the optical phase transfer function's central slope and is represented as "m";
extracting, from the number of photons collected, a noise level, the noise level corresponding to Poisson noise and represented as "sqrt(N)", where the SNR is given by m*sqrt(N),
although it is clear from the phase contrast in the results that Mertz shows (e.g., in FIG. 10, bottom row) that the systems produced result in substantially nonzero phase contrast sensitivity, and the conclusion reached in paragraph 154 that the simulations show oblique incidence evidences that Mertz considered the sensitivity to phase contrasts when performing the simulations.
In the same field of endeavor of back-illuminated quantitative phase imaging, Robles does teach calculating an optical phase transfer function for the imaging system when imaging the sample using the imaging system having the unique set of parameters (paragraph 77, equation 9);
extracting a phase sensitivity from the optical phase transfer function, where the phase sensitivity is proportional to the optical phase transfer function's central slope and is represented as "m" (paragraph 77, equations 10-11 describe the relationship between the phase to be measured and the intensity of the DPC image and optical phase transfer function of the imaging system). By using optical phase transfer functions, Robles is able to better characterize the imaging system and relate the angular distribution of source illumination (and the breadth of the illumination intensity in angle space) to the expected imaging properties (see paragraph 73 of Robles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the simulations of Mertz with the mathematics of Robles to use the simulation results regarding angular distributions of light to characterize the properties of the imaging system under design.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, while combining Mertz and Robles, extract, from the number of photons collected, a noise level, the noise level corresponding to Poisson noise and represented as "sqrt(N)" (see paragraph 106. Note that shot noise is based on photons arriving according to a Poisson distribution. See Paschotta (Non-Patent Literature “Shot Noise”).), where the SNR is given by m*sqrt(N) (this is true regardless of whether Mertz explicitly calculated it or not) to gain the predictable benefit of determining the adequacy of the system under consideration to properly image samples at an acceptable SNR, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Mertz, as modified by Robles, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 14 (as described above).
Mertz further teaches that simulating light scattering properties of the sample when imaging the sample using the imaging system having the unique set of parameters comprises simulating a measurement of an oblique angle of scattered photons incident a detector of the imaging sample when imaging the sample using the imaging system having the unique set of parameters (FIG. 8B has a graph of the tilt of the photons that were incident on the detector).
Regarding claim 20, Mertz, as modified by Robles, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 14 (as described above).
Mertz further teaches that the unique set of parameters comprises one or more selected from the following: an illumination wavelength; a lateral separation distance (paragraph 152, fiber-probe separation distances); an axial separation distance (FIG. 26) between an MMF (paragraph 111) and GRIN lens (paragraph 16); a MMF illuminating angle (FIG. 8C); and a MMF NA (FIG. 8D).
Regarding claim 21, Mertz, as modified by Robles, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Robles further teaches that determining the first SNR of the first simulated optical response comprises determining the first SNR based on spatial-frequency-dependent characteristics of the first simulated optical response (see paragraph 71, which defines f as a spatial frequency, which is used directly or indirectly by later equations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mertz with the calculations of Robles by performing the spatial frequency-based calculations of Robles in order to make those calculations work.
Conclusion
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 PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877