DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Pre-amendment
2. The present office action is made in response to the Pre-amendment filed by applicant on 08/24/2023. It is noted that in the Pre-amendment, applicant has made changes to the specification and the claims. There was not any change being made to the abstract and the drawings.
A) Regarding the specification, applicant has made change(s) to the paragraph [0001] in page 1 of the specification; and
B) Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 3-4, 8, 10, 13, 17, 19, 23, 28 and 37, and canceled claims 2, 5-7, 9, 11, 14, 18, 20-21, 24-26, 29-31 and 38. There was not any claim being added into the application.
As amended, the pending claims are claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10, 12-13, 15-17, 19, 22-23, 27-28 and 32-37.
Election/Restrictions
3. In response to the Election/Restriction mailed to applicant on 12/17/2025, applicant has made an election without traverse of Invention IV in the reply filed on 02/05/2026.
4. As a result of applicant’s election, claims 1, 15-17, 19, 22-23 and 27-28 are examined in the present office action, and claims 3-4, 8, 10, 12-13 and 32-37 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected Inventions I-III.
Applicant should note that claims 3-4, 8, 10 and 12-13 will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim. Claims 32-37 will be rejoined if the independent claim 32 has all features of the claim 1 if the claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The references listed in each of the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/24/2023 and 11/30/2023 has been considered by the examiner; however, each of the following references has been lined-through because applicant has not provided the number of pages for each references.
a) The reference thereof “GORDON, Paul … Optics, 24(9), 2019” listed in the section of NON-PATENT LITERATURE DOCUMENTS of the IDS filed on 08/24/2023; and
b) The reference thereof “GUIDA, Stefania … Dermatology, 2019” and the reference thereof “Mirbeik-Sabzevari … 66:1 (Jan. 2019)” listed in the section of NON-PATENT LITERATURE DOCUMENTS of the IDS filed on 11/30/2023.
Drawings
6. The drawings contain seventeen sheets of figures 1-8, 9A-9B, 10A-10B and 11-15 were received on 08/24/2023. These drawings are approved by the examiner.
Specification
7. The lengthy specification which was amended by the pre-amendment of 08/24/2023 has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
8. The abstract provided in the front page of the WO 2022/182715 A1 is used as an abstract of the present US application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 15-17, 19, 22-23 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the following reasons.
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by the feature thereof “an immersion medium … immersion medium” (lines 7-10).
The mentioned feature makes the claim indefinite due to the use of term “when” (line 8). Applicant should note that the term “when” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d)
b) Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements and their essential structural cooperative relationships of the elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted essential elements and structural cooperative relationships of the elements are elements being used to co-align the images from the image sensor and rom the photo detector as recited in the features thereof “an imaging sensor … are coaligned” (lines 1-4).
c) Each of claims 23 and 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the similar reason as set forth in element b) above.
d) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiency thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim 1, as best as understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdulhalm et al (US Publication No.015/0109623, submitted by applicant) in view of Motoyama (US Patent No. 6,221,281).
Abdulhalm et al discloses an interference microscope.
Regarding present claim 1, the interference microscope as described in paragraphs [0112]-[0113] and shown in fig. 2 comprises the following features:
a) a light source system (101, 102);
b) a condenser (105) positioned to receive light from the light source system and send the light toward a polarization beam splitter (110) wherein the polarizing beam splitter receives light outputted from the condenser and directs light of a first polarization to an objective lens (119);
c) an oil immersion medium (116) positioned after the objective lens (119) contacts a surface of a sample (120) for allowing light of the first polarization illuminate the sample and for receiving scattering light from the sample;
d) the objective lens (119) receiving the scattering light from the oil immersion medium and directs that scattering light back to the polarization beam splitter wherein the polarization beam splitter directs the scattering light from the sample to an analyzer (111) which scattering light now contains a second polarization and the light having a second polarization is focused into an image plane (123) by a focusing lens (122); and
e) the objective lens (119) has a numerical aperture of 1.25, see paragraph [0112] on lines 25-27 of the paragraph.
The only feature missing from the interference microscope provided by Abdulhalm et al is that they do not positively discloses the refractive index of the oil immersion medium. However, an oil immersion medium positioned after an objective lens from directing light passing thought the object lens to illuminate a sample and for directing scattering light from the sample back to the objective lens wherein the oil immersion medium has a refractive index in a range of 1.3 to 1.6 is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the microscope having an oil immersion medium provided by Motoyama, see columns 4-6 and claim 1.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the interference microscope provided by Abdulhalm et al by using an oil immersion medium having a refractive index in a range of 1.3 to 1.6 as suggested by Motoyama for the purpose of reducing surface aberrations and to increase the numerical aperture of the objective lens(es) used in the microscope, see Motoyama in column 1, lines 25-30.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 15-19, 22-23 and 27-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if each of claims 15, 22 and 27 is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. It is noted that the claims should be amended to overcome the rejection of its base claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the present office action.
15. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
a) The optical imaging device as recited in the dependent claim 15 is allowable with respect to the prior art, in particular, the US Publication No. 2015/0109623 and 2020/0025677 and the US Patent No. 6,221,281 by the arrangement of a dichroic, a collimator, a beam splitter, a beam scanner, a second focusing lens as recited in the features thereof “a dichroic mirror … second focusing lens” (claim 15 on lines 2-20) which arrangement is used in combination with other optical elements of the optical imaging arranged in the features thereof “a condenser … an image plane” of its base claim 1 on lines 2-18. Such a structure is not disclosed in the prior art.
It is noted that while the US Publication No. 2020/0025677 discloses an arrangement having a dichroic mirror, a beam scanner, a second focusing lens and a collimator; however, the arrangement of such elements in the mentioned publication does not satisfy the arrangement of those elements recited in the features thereof “a collimator lens … the objective lens” of claim 15 on lines 6-12.
b) The optical imaging device as recited in each of the dependent claims 22 and 27 is allowable with respect to the prior art, in particular, the US Publication No. 2015/0109623 and 2020/0025677 and the US Patent No. 6,221,281 by the arrangement of a dichroic, a collimator, a beam splitter, first and second gratins, and a second focusing lens as recited in the features thereof “a dichroic mirror … second imaging plane” (claim 22 on lines 6-23 or claim 27 on lines 6-19) which arrangement is used in combination with other optical elements of the optical imaging arranged in the features thereof “a condenser … an image plane” of its base claim 1 on lines 2-18. Such a structure is not disclosed in the prior art.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
17. The US Publication No. 2014/0285881 is cited as of interest in that it discloses a microscope having a phase plate , an objective lens and an immersion medium wherein the immersion medium has a refractive index of 1.5 and the objective lens has a numerical aperture of 1.4.
The WO 2019/130372 discloses a scanning microscope having a plurality of dichroic mirrors arranged after a polarizing beam splitter and collimators; however, the arrangement of light source, collimators, polarizing beamsplitter and dichroic mirrors does not satisfy the arrangement of optical elements as recited in each of claims 15, 22 and 27 with its base claim 1.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights