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 .
Request for Interview
In view of the foregoing instant office action, it is respectfully submitted that if Applicant has any questions or concerns with said instant office action, the Examiner respectfully invites Applicant to contact the Examiner at the telephone number appearing below at the end of the office action.
Something to consider:
The examiner had notice and appreciates an interesting teaching from applicants’ disclosure. It appears, as per the examiners understanding, that adding a limitation requiring multiple beamlets exist simultaneously at different spatial positions would be a structural limitation, as per the examiners understanding, that would remove the Yu reference in the below rejection while still keeping the claimed invention intact. Applicants’ invention appears to produce spatially separated beamlets used simultaneously for imaging, again, as per the examiners understanding.
Adding a limitation requiring that multiple beamlets exist simultaneously at different spatial positions appears to be allowable from a search given on 03/07/2026.
For example:
“…wherein the plurality of beamlets propagate along different optical paths toward different focal positions” is one example of many amendments that may be used, to overcome the instant rejection to claim 1, as far as the examiner understand. If applicant is open to such an idea, the examiner invites applicant to an interview.
Support appears to be at paragraphs [0016] – [0024], [0038] - [0041] and (Figure 4). This is just a cursory review and applicant ought to review the citations and the rest of the teachings for the complete accurate documentation of such an amendment as shown above.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/25/2025 was entered. Claims 1 to 20 are pending. Applicant amended claims 1 and 14 to include new recitations and thereby, narrowing the claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
New rejections against claims 1 – 4 and 14 – 17 were made with Yu et al. (2007/0047601 A1) in view of Beaulieu et al (Nature Methods 2020).
New rejections against claims 5 – 13 and 18 - 20 were made with Yu et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0047601 A1) and Beaulieu et al (Nature Methods 2020) in view of Dunn et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0031479 A1).
See the rejections as written below.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4 and 14 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (2007/0047601 A1) in view of Beaulieu, D.R., Davison, I.G., Kılıç, K. et al. Simultaneous multiplane imaging with reverberation two-photon microscopy. Nat Methods 17, 283–286 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0728-9
With regards to claims 1 and 14, Yu discloses a multiplexing module configured to perform operations of (Figure 2):
receiving a plurality of laser pulses from a pulsed laser source via an input coupler element, splitting each laser pulse into a plurality of beamlets [0013], [0020];
using a beam splitter element 11 (51) configured to direct a first fraction of each laser pulse toward an output coupler element of the multiplexing module [0021] and to direct a second fraction of each laser pulse toward a set of mirrors [0020], [0021], of the multiplexing module to cause the second portion of each laser pulse to perform a round trip around the multiplexing module [0013];
the round time introducing a delay between adjacent beamlets of the plurality of beamlets [0013], [0020];
and outputting the plurality of beamlets associated with each respective laser pulse via an output coupler element [0021],
wherein the input coupler and the output coupler are separate elements of the multiplexing module (i.e., beam splitter 11, input, and beam splitter 51, output) [0021].
Yu fails to expressly disclose to cause the second portion of each laser pulse to perform a round trip around the multiplexing module to the beam splitter element to further split the second fraction of each laser pulse. Thus, Yu does not teach explicitly that the pulse is re-split at the same splitter after the round trip or that spatially separated beamlets used for imaging multiple planes simultaneously. Yu just teaches that the pulses are extracted.
Beaulieu teaches an optical reverberation loop producing beamlets that are spatially separated along the optical axis. Beaulieu explains that each round trip produces a pulse delayed in time and shifted in axial focus (Page 283, right column).
Beaulieu further teaches that the teachings help with a simplified implementation of spatiotemporal multiplexing that provides an infinite series of vertically distributed beam foci, performing a near-instantaneous axial scan, with essentially no loss in laser power (Page 283, right column). Thus, Beaulieu teaches spatial beamlets corresponding to Yu’s temporally separated pulses.
As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yu to include the teachings such as that taught by Beaulieu to produce a predictable multiplexed imaging source capable of generating multiple focal planes form a single pulse train.
With regards to claims 2 and 15, Yu discloses splitting each laser pulse into the plurality of beamlets (i.e., see splitting pulse into beamlets with the beam splitter) [0020] comprising splitting each laser pulse into the plurality of beamlets using a beam splitter located in a focal space of the multiplexing module (i.e., see the delay line optical path) (Figure 2) [0019] – [0022].
With regards to claims 3 and 16, Yu discloses the beam splitter comprises a partially reflective mirror (i.e., the beam splitters/mirrors partially transmit pulse each trip and/or round trip [0021] (Claim 1).
With regards to claims 4 and 17, Yu discloses the beam splitter 51 is the output coupler of the multiplexing module (i.e., beam splitter 51 transmits outgoing pulses) [0021].
Claim(s) 5 – 7 and 18 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (2007/0047601 A1) and Beaulieu, D.R., Davison, I.G., Kılıç, K. et al. Simultaneous multiplane imaging with reverberation two-photon microscopy. Nat Methods 17, 283–286 (2020) in view of Dunn et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0031479 A1).
With regards to claims 5 and 18, Yu modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1 but fails to expressly disclose the multiplexing module is further configured to perform an operation of: directing the plurality of laser pulses from the pulsed laser source into a first re-imaging cavity of the multiplexing module using a first mirror. Yu teaches mirrors and delay mirrors but not-re-imaging cavity [0019] – [0021].
Dunn teaches systems and methods for particle tracking using spatiotemporal offset light beams (Abstract).
Dunn further teaches laser beam steering by active feedback system including beam steering optics for spatiotemporal multiplexer design, such as optical delay and relay components [0069] [0072] [0098].
In view of the utility, to improve beam to imaging path and operations, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yu to include the teachings such as that taught by Dunn.
With regards to claims 6 and 19, Yu modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1 but fails to expressly disclose the first mirror is selected to minimize a lateral offset of adjacent beamlets
Dunn teaches beam steering mirror arrangement that minimizes lateral offset of adjacent beams [0069] [0072] [0098].
In view of the utility, to improve beam to imaging path and operations, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yu to include the teachings such as that taught by Dunn.
With regards to claims 7 and 20, Yu modified fails to expressly disclose a first mirror is a knife-edge mirror.
Notice that the selection of known elements is generally a matter of design choice. The examiner takes Official Notice that knife edge mirrors are stand beam clipping components used in optical alignment and beam shaming. As such, to improve beam to imaging, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yu to include the teachings such as that is well known and design choice.
Claim(s) 8 - 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (2007/0047601 A1) and Beaulieu, D.R., Davison, I.G., Kılıç, K. et al. Simultaneous multiplane imaging with reverberation two-photon microscopy. Nat Methods 17, 283–286 (2020) and Dunn et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0031479 A1) in view of Perillo et al. (Single Molecule Spectroscopy and Superresolution Imaging VIII, edited by Jörg Enderlein, Ingo Gregor, Zygmunt Karol Gryczynski, Rainer Erdmann, Felix Koberling, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9331, pages 1 -8)
With regards to claim 8 - 13, Yu modified discloses the claimed limitations such as that that is claimed in claim 5 but fails to expressly disclose all the elements and configuration such as claimed.
Perillo teaches the missing element and configurations (Pages 1 – 8).
In view of the utility, to improve beam to imaging path and operations, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yu to include the teachings such as that taught by Perillo.
With regards to claim 13, Yu modified fails to expressly disclose the second-reimaging cavity includes a single concave mirror and a plurality of flat mirrors
Notice that the selection of known elements is generally a matter of design choice. The examiner takes Official Notice that using a second-reimaging cavity including a single concave mirror and a plurality of flat mirrors used in optical alignment and beam shaming routinely used in optical cavities to control beam convergence and divergence. As such, to improve beam to imaging, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yu to include the teachings such as that is well known and design choice.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DJURA MALEVIC whose telephone number is (571)272-5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5).
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571.272.3995 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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884