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 Claims 1-7 and 9-20 in the reply filed on 03/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/30/2026.
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.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “the a partition comprises a plurality of pixel rows” wherein it is unclear how the partition is a plurality of pixel rows given that a partition is normally understood as a mere dividing element. Further, the claims are absent an imager or the like that affords pixels. Does Applicant intend to recite that the partitions are aligned with pixel rows?
Further, the recitation “the a partition…” is indefinitely understood. Does Applicant intend to recite something on the order of “wherein one of the plurality of partitions…”?
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (US 2016/0109693 A1), hereinafter “Feng”, in view of Dixon et al. (US 2018/0307019 A1), hereinafter “Dixon”.
Regarding Claim 1, Feng teaches an imaging system 100 for capturing spatial images of biological tissue samples (See Fig. 1 and Abstract: “a confocal time delay and integration (TDI) line scan imaging system”), the imaging system comprising:
an imaging chamber 1216 configured to hold a biological tissue sample 120 placed in the imaging system 100 (See Figs. 13A and 13B, and [0073]: “In particular embodiments, advantageous features of a flow cell for use in processing tissues include... flow cell components to at least partially enclose the tissue sample in a fluidic chamber that allows fluids to come into contact with the tissue sample and that the allows formation of a detection zone for observation of the tissue sample...”);
a light source 150 configured to illuminate the biological tissue sample 120 to activate one or more fluorophores in the biological tissue sample 120 ([0055]: “Light source 150 is the excitation light source for illuminating tissue sample 120 during the imaging (or scanning) process. In so doing, tissue sample 120 emits certain in-focus fluorescent light 152...” – See also para. [0036] discussing fluorophore attachment.);
a Time Delay and Integration (TDI) imager comprising a plurality of partitions ([0005]: “one embodiment provided herein is a confocal time delay and integration (TDI) line scan imaging system” -- The partitions being the dividers forming the apertures 134/138 as seen through Fig. 3.); and
a controller configured to cause the TDI imager to scan the biological tissue sample (See paras. [0101-0102]: “The various illustrative blocks, modules, and circuits described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein may be implemented or performed with a general purpose processor...”.),
as in Claim 1.
Further regarding Claim 1, Feng does not specifically teach the system discussed above wherein the plurality of partitions are configured to capture images at a plurality of different depths in the biological tissue sample simultaneously during a scan by the TDI imager, as in Claim 1.
However, Dixon teaches a respective tissue sample imaging system wherein a plurality of partitions (rows of pixels) are configured to capture images at a plurality of different depths in the biological tissue sample simultaneously ([0083]: “Each row of pixels in detector 420 (rows pointing into the paper in this figure) generally collects data from a different depth inside specimen 100.”). Therein, this configuration provides for increased exposure time, allowing imaging of weaker fluorophores, while avoiding the typical significant increase in assay/imaging time associated therewith, thereby providing for rapid and high-definition image generation at higher throughput and precision (See paras. [0014-0024].).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the system of Feng wherein the plurality of partitions are configured to capture images at a plurality of different depths in the biological tissue sample simultaneously during a scan by the TDI imager, such as suggested by Dixon, so as to provide for increased exposure time, thereby allowing imaging of weaker fluorophores, while avoiding the typical significant increase in assay/imaging time associated therewith, thereby providing for rapid and high-definition image generation at higher throughput and precision.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Feng does not specifically teach the system discussed above wherein the TDI imager is tilted at an angle relative to the biological tissue sample such that focal planes for the plurality of partitions correspond to the plurality of different depths in the biological tissue sample, as in Claim 2.
However, Dixon teaches a respective tissue sample imaging system wherein the TDI array detector 410 is tilted at an angle (Fig. 4A and [0080]: “Camera 410 (containing two-dimensional detector array 420 positioned at the image plane) is tilted (normally with respect to the plane of the microscope slide about an axis that is parallel to the plane of the microscope slide and is perpendicular to the direction of stage motion)...”). Therein, this arrangement is what provides for the simultaneous imaging at multiple depths as discussed above regarding Claim 1, having the benefits of providing for increased exposure time, thereby allowing imaging of weaker fluorophores, while avoiding the typical significant increase in assay/imaging time associated therewith, thereby providing for rapid and high-definition image generation at higher throughput and precision.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the system of Feng wherein the TDI imager is tilted at an angle relative to the biological tissue sample such that focal planes for the plurality of partitions correspond to the plurality of different depths in the biological tissue sample, such as suggested by Dixon, so as to provide for increased exposure time, thereby allowing imaging of weaker fluorophores, while avoiding the typical significant increase in assay/imaging time associated therewith, thereby providing for rapid and high-definition image generation at higher throughput and precision.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Feng teaches the system discussed above wherein the plurality of partitions on the TDI imager are physically separated by spaces 134/138 between the plurality of partitions (See Fig. 3 showing spaces between the protrusions of the aperture plate 136; and [0060]: “Slits 134 in aperture plate 132 and slits 138 in aperture plate 136 have a width w.”), as in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Feng teaches the system discussed above wherein the plurality of partitions on the TDI imager are separated by a row of pixels that are covered ([0065]: “FIG. 5A shows a first state of spatial light modulator 140 in which windows or slits 142 are electronically opened that substantially align with the odd columns of pixels 148 of TDI image sensor 146. By contrast, FIG. 5B shows a second state of spatial light modulator 140 in which windows or slits 142 are electronically opened that substantially align with the even columns of pixels 148 of TDI image sensor 146.” As the pixels fall between the partitions, the rows of pixels serve to separate each of the partitions. Further, the pixels are shown as covered by the light modulator 140. – Figs. 3-5B show a spatial separation of the pixels from the light modulator 132/140; however, to prevent light bleeding to different pixels, the light modulator 132/140 must be effectively in contact with the pixels, thereby further allowing the pixels to separate each of the partitions.), as in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Feng is provided with the sensor configuration allowing simultaneous imaging of different depths suggested by Dixon, as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therein, the different depths of Dixon are different depth ranges, such as the depth positions 421 and 423 seen through Fig. 4A.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that, when modifying Feng in view of Dixon, to provide the plurality of different depths as a plurality of different depth ranges, so as to achieve the above discussed advantages of Dixon.
Further, as an image must necessarily comprise some thickness of the sample, even if infinitely small, the image always comprises a certain range of depth.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 5 as discussed above. Further, Feng is provided with the sensor configuration allowing simultaneous imaging of different depths suggested by Dixon, as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therein, the different depths of Dixon are different depth ranges, such as the depth positions 421 and 423 seen through Fig. 4A. As such, regarding the modification of Feng in view of Dixon, the partition in the plurality of partitions on the TDI imager corresponds to a depth range in the plurality of different depth ranges, as the corresponding imager of Dixon corresponds to a depth range in the plurality of different depth ranges. Further regarding Dixon, a plurality of pixel rows provides for the different depths, and the each of the plurality of pixel rows corresponds to a different depth in the depth range ([0083]: “Each row of pixels in detector 420 (rows pointing into the paper in this figure) generally collects data from a different depth inside specimen 100.”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that, when modifying Feng in view of Dixon, to provide the partition in the plurality of partitions on the TDI imager corresponding to a depth range in the plurality of different depth ranges, the partition comprises a plurality of pixel rows, and the each of the plurality of pixel rows corresponds to a different depth in the depth range, such as suggested by Dixon, so as to provide the structure of Dixon responsible for imaging different depth ranges and to achieve the advantages of Dixon discussed above.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above. Further, Feng does not specifically teach the system discussed above wherein data received from the plurality of pixel rows are combined in a focus-drilling combination to produce an image for the depth range, as in Claim 7.
However, Dixon provides for combining the plural images of different depths into a 3D focus-drillable image ([0088]: “Adjacent strips may then be scanned, and the 3D stack images of all strips can be combined to assemble a 3D image of the entire specimen, which includes a stack of two-dimensional images, where each 2D image in the stack has a depth of field...”). Therein, this arrangement allows a user to evaluate a 3D tissue sample merely by scrolling through the stack axis, allowing for improved evaluation of the sample.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the controller of Feng wherein data received from the plurality of pixel rows (provided through the modification with Dixon as in Claim 6) are combined in a focus-drilling combination to produce an image for the depth range, such as suggested by Dixon, so as to allow a user to evaluate a 3D tissue sample merely by scrolling through the stack axis, allowing for improved evaluation of the sample.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Feng is provided with the sensor configuration allowing simultaneous imaging of different depths suggested by Dixon, as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therein, the different depths of Dixon are different depth ranges, such as the depth positions 421 and 423 seen through Fig. 4A. When modifying Feng in view of this aspect of Dixon, each partition in the plurality of partitions on the TDI imager corresponds to a depth range in the plurality of different depth ranges as the partitions in Feng correspond to rows and columns of pixels. Further regarding Dixon, a plurality of pixel rows provides for the different depths, and the each of the plurality of pixel rows corresponds to a different depth in the depth range ([0083]: “Each row of pixels in detector 420 (rows pointing into the paper in this figure) generally collects data from a different depth inside specimen 100.”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that, when modifying Feng in view of Dixon, to provide the modification wherein the plurality of different depths in the biological tissue sample comprise a plurality of different depth ranges in the biological tissue sample, a partition in the plurality of partitions on the TDI imager corresponds to a depth range in the plurality of different depth ranges, the partition comprises a plurality of pixel rows, and each of the plurality of pixel rows corresponds to a different depth in the depth range, such as suggested by Dixon, so as to achieve the advantages of Dixon discussed above.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 9 as discussed above. Further, Feng does not specifically teach the system discussed above wherein the controller is further configured to combine data received from the plurality of pixel rows in a focus-drilling combination to produce an image for the depth range, as in Claim 10.
However, Dixon provides for combining the plural images of different depths into a 3D focus-drillable image ([0088]: “Adjacent strips may then be scanned, and the 3D stack images of all strips can be combined to assemble a 3D image of the entire specimen, which includes a stack of two-dimensional images, where each 2D image in the stack has a depth of field...”). Therein, this arrangement allows a user to evaluate a 3D tissue sample merely by scrolling through the stack axis, allowing for improved evaluation of the sample.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the controller of Feng as further configured to combine data received from the plurality of pixel rows (provided through the modification with Dixon as in Claim 6) in a focus-drilling combination to produce an image for the depth range, such as suggested by Dixon, so as to allow a user to evaluate a 3D tissue sample merely by scrolling through the stack axis, allowing for improved evaluation of the sample.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 9 as discussed above. Further, Feng/Dixon does not specifically teach the system discussed above wherein the depth range is between about 250 nm and about 750 nm, as in Claim 11.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select or optimize the depth range, including a range of approximately 250 nm to 750 nm, through routine experimentation to achieve the desired imaging characteristics. The claimed imaging range/depth is a mere selection of a region/plane of the sample to be imaged which would be workable via routine experimentation so as to provide the desired image containing relevant structures falling within the depth range. These general conditions are disclosed through Feng/Dixon which teaches imaging at various depths to obtain a desired image of the sample. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum or workable range through routine experimentation is ordinarily obvious. See In re Aller, 220 F.2nd 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Feng/Dixon do not specifically teach the system discussed above wherein the biological tissue sample is between about 2 pm and about 10 pm thick, as in Claim 12.
However, the tissue sample is not a positively claimed element of Claim 1 and is instead provided as a mere intended workpiece/object worked upon by the positively claimed elements of the invention (the tissue sample is merely inferred through a configuration of the imaging chamber: “an imaging chamber configured to hold a biological tissue sample”). As such, the particular thickness of the tissue sample as between about 2 pm and about 10 pm is seen as a mere imaging capability of the system to image extremely thin samples. To this end, as the system of Feng/Dixon commensurately teaches all the structural elements of Claim 1, the system of Feng/Dixon is fully capable of obtaining at various depths images of a tissue sample with thickness between about 2 pm and about 10 pm and thereby meets the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Feng teaches the system discussed above wherein the controller is further configured to generate images of the biological tissue sample from each of the plurality of partitions ([0054]: “By calibrating the sensor aperture mechanism 130 to substantially eliminate out-of-focus signal, only the light from a focal plane just focused at a slit of the sensor aperture mechanism 130 is allowed reach the image detector.” – [0042]: “Images obtained from such methods can be stored, processed and analyzed as set forth herein.” – See also paras. [0101-0102] regarding the controller and algorithm therefor.), as in Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, Feng teaches an imaging system comprising:
a Time Delay and Integration (TDI) imager comprising a plurality of partitions ([0005]: “one embodiment provided herein is a confocal time delay and integration (TDI) line scan imaging system” -- The partitions being the dividers forming the apertures 134/138 as seen through Fig. 3.), wherein
the plurality of partitions are configured to capture images at a plurality of different depths in a volume during a scan by the TDI imager ([0054]: “By calibrating the sensor aperture mechanism 130 to substantially eliminate out-of-focus signal, only the light from a focal plane just focused at a slit of the sensor aperture mechanism 130 is allowed reach the image detector. Therefore, optical resolution of nucleic acid within a specific depth of tissue (from the focal plane just focused at the slit) may be increased relative to systems that do not substantially eliminate out-of-focus signals.” – See further Figs 12-13 showing the volume 1216.), as in Claim 14.
Further regarding Claim 14, Feng does not specifically teach simultaneously capturing the images, as in Claim 14.
However, Dixon teaches a respective tissue sample imaging system wherein a plurality of partitions (rows of pixels) are configured to capture images at a plurality of different depths in the biological tissue sample simultaneously ([0083]: “Each row of pixels in detector 420 (rows pointing into the paper in this figure) generally collects data from a different depth inside specimen 100.”). Therein, this configuration provides for increased exposure time, allowing imaging of weaker fluorophores, while avoiding the typical significant increase in assay/imaging time associated therewith, thereby providing for rapid and high-definition image generation at higher throughput and precision (See paras. [0014-0024].).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the system of Feng wherein the plurality of partitions are configured to capture images at a plurality of different depths in the biological tissue sample simultaneously during a scan by the TDI imager, such as suggested by Dixon, so as to provide for increased exposure time, thereby allowing imaging of weaker fluorophores, while avoiding the typical significant increase in assay/imaging time associated therewith, thereby providing for rapid and high-definition image generation at higher throughput and precision.
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 14 as discussed above. Further, Feng does not specifically teach the system discussed above wherein the TDI imager is tilted at an angle relative to the volume such that focal planes for the plurality of partitions correspond to the plurality of different depths in the volume, and the angle is adjustable to fine-tune the plurality of different depths in the volume, as in Claim 15.
However, Dixon teaches a respective tissue sample imaging system wherein the TDI array detector 410 is tilted at an angle (Fig. 4A and [0080]: “Camera 410 (containing two-dimensional detector array 420 positioned at the image plane) is tilted (normally with respect to the plane of the microscope slide about an axis that is parallel to the plane of the microscope slide and is perpendicular to the direction of stage motion)...”). Therein, this arrangement is what provides for the simultaneous imaging at multiple depths as discussed above regarding Claim 1, having the benefits of providing for increased exposure time, thereby allowing imaging of weaker fluorophores, while avoiding the typical significant increase in assay/imaging time associated therewith, thereby providing for rapid and high-definition image generation at higher throughput and precision. – Further, Dixon teaches varying of the angle of the detector ([0136]: “The angle between the image sensor and the scan plane can also be varied.”). See paras. [0109, 0126-0134] discussing changing the angle to achieve different image planes.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the system of Feng wherein the TDI imager is tilted at an angle relative to the volume such that focal planes for the plurality of partitions correspond to the plurality of different depths in the volume, and the angle is adjustable to fine-tune the plurality of different depths in the volume, such as suggested by Dixon, so as to provide for increased exposure time, thereby allowing imaging of weaker fluorophores, while avoiding the typical significant increase in assay/imaging time associated therewith, thereby providing for rapid and high-definition image generation at higher throughput and precision.
Regarding Claim 16, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 14 as discussed above. Further, Feng does not specifically teach the system discussed above further comprising a glass cover on the TDI, wherein the glass cover comprises a plurality of sections corresponding to the plurality of partitions, wherein thicknesses of the plurality of sections of the glass cover cause focal planes for the plurality of partitions be at the plurality of different depths in the volume, as in Claim 16.
However, Dixon teaches a respective tissue sample imaging system where the optical tilt of the detector (discussed above as being responsible for the simultaneous image capture at multiple depths) may be achieved with a glass cover ([0040]: “Optical tilt of the detector with respect to the lens can also be achieved by putting a glass (or other optical material) wedge in front of the detector.” – See also Fig. 4B showing the wedge lens 428.). Therein, the glass cover implicitly comprises “sections” corresponding to the pixels of the detector, which would correspond to the partitions of Feng when applied thereto. Further, the varying thickness of the glass wedge is responsible for bending the light to varying degrees for linger/shorter travel distance, the aspect responsible for the ability to image at different depths simultaneously. As such, the thicknesses of the plurality of sections of the glass cover cause focal planes for the plurality of partitions be at the plurality of different depths in the volume commensurately as claimed.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Feng further comprising a glass cover on the TDI, wherein the glass cover comprises a plurality of sections corresponding to the plurality of partitions, wherein thicknesses of the plurality of sections of the glass cover cause focal planes for the plurality of partitions be at the plurality of different depths in the volume, such as suggested by Dixon, so as to provide an alternate arrangement for varying the travel distance of respective beams of light so as to achieve the simultaneous multi-layer imaging of Dixon and achieve the benefits drawn thereto discussed above as in Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 14 as discussed above. Further, Feng does not specifically teach the system discussed above further comprising a lens in front of the TDI, wherein the lens comprises a plurality of sections corresponding to the plurality of partitions, wherein thicknesses of the plurality of sections of the lens cause focal planes for the plurality of partitions be at the plurality of different depths in the volume, as in Claim 17.
However, Dixon teaches a respective tissue sample imaging system where the optical tilt of the detector (discussed above as being responsible for the simultaneous image capture at multiple depths) may be achieved with a glass cover ([0040]: “Optical tilt of the detector with respect to the lens can also be achieved by putting a glass (or other optical material) wedge in front of the detector.” – Interpreted herein as being a “wedge lens” satisfying the “lens” provision of the claim. – “Lens” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation herein as “a piece of glass or other transparent substance with for concentrating or dispersing light rays” -- See also Fig. 4B showing the wedge lens 428.). Therein, the glass cover/lens implicitly comprises “sections” corresponding to the pixels of the detector, which would correspond to the partitions of Feng when applied thereto. Further, the varying thickness of the glass wedge is responsible for bending the light to varying degrees for linger/shorter travel distance, the aspect responsible for the ability to image at different depths simultaneously. As such, the thicknesses of the plurality of sections of the glass cover cause focal planes for the plurality of partitions be at the plurality of different depths in the volume commensurately as claimed.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Feng further comprising a lens in front of the TDI, wherein the lens comprises a plurality of sections corresponding to the plurality of partitions, wherein thicknesses of the plurality of sections of the lens cause focal planes for the plurality of partitions be at the plurality of different depths in the volume, such as suggested by Dixon, so as to provide an alternate arrangement for varying the travel distance of respective beams of light so as to achieve the simultaneous multi-layer imaging of Dixon and achieve the benefits drawn thereto discussed above as in Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 14 as discussed above. Further, Feng teaches the system discussed above wherein the volume comprises a biological tissue sample (See Figs. 12B and 13A-B showing the volume 1216 comprising a biological tissue sample 120.), as in Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 14 as discussed above. Further, Feng does not specifically teach the system discussed above further comprising a lens in front of the TDI, wherein the lens comprises a wedge shape, wherein the wedge shape causes focal planes for the plurality of partitions be at the plurality of different depths in the volume, as in Claim 20.
However, Dixon teaches a respective tissue sample imaging system where the optical tilt of the detector (discussed above as being responsible for the simultaneous image capture at multiple depths) may be achieved with a glass cover ([0040]: “Optical tilt of the detector with respect to the lens can also be achieved by putting a glass (or other optical material) wedge in front of the detector.” – Interpreted herein as being a “wedge lens” satisfying the “lens” provision of the claim. – “Lens” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation herein as “a piece of glass or other transparent substance with for concentrating or dispersing light rays” -- See also Fig. 4B showing the wedge lens 428.). Therein, the glass cover/lens implicitly comprises “sections” corresponding to the pixels of the detector, which would correspond to the partitions of Feng when applied thereto. Further, the varying thickness of the glass wedge is responsible for bending the light to varying degrees for linger/shorter travel distance, the aspect responsible for the ability to image at different depths simultaneously. As such, the thicknesses of the plurality of sections of the glass cover cause focal planes for the plurality of partitions be at the plurality of different depths in the volume commensurately as claimed.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Feng further comprising a lens in front of the TDI, wherein the lens comprises a wedge shape, wherein the wedge shape causes the focal planes for the plurality of partitions be at the plurality of different depths in the volume, such as suggested by Dixon, so as to provide an alternate arrangement for varying the travel distance of respective beams of light so as to achieve the simultaneous multi-layer imaging of Dixon and achieve the benefits drawn thereto discussed above as in Claim 14.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Dixon, as applied to Claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 above, and in further view of Saari et al. (US 2019/0257987 A1), hereinafter “Saari”.
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 14 as discussed above. Further, Feng/Dixon does not specifically teach the system discussed above wherein the plurality of partitions of the TDI imager have different heights relative to each other, and the different heights cause focal planes for the plurality of partitions be at the plurality of different depths in the volume, as in Claim 18.
However, Saari teaches a respective imaging system for producing 3D images of biological samples wherein a diffraction grating is provided on a detector pixel array so as to provide a predetermined optical path difference between the ridges and the grooves of the grating, thereby providing depth information regarding the optical wavefront traveling toward the detector so as to provide a depth map of the sample ([0110]: “the chromatic spread of the optical wavefront 26, as sampled through the angle-dependent diffraction produced by the diffractive grating 28, can provide coarse depth information about the optical wavefront 26. In such scenarios, the finer details of the depth information can be obtained” – [0079]: “More particularly, it will be understood that the present techniques can allow recovery or extraction of depth or other light field information from the intensity-based diffraction pattern captured by the pixel array 38, as described further below.” – [0074]: “For example, other implementations can use diffraction gratings where at least one among the grating period...the step height is variable” – See Fig. 16 showing the step height 56.).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the system of Feng/Dixon wherein the plurality of partitions of the TDI imager have different heights relative to each other, such as suggested by Saari, so as to enable a depth map of the imaged tissue sample.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights