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 Amendment and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments filed 30 September 2025. Claims 1-7, 9-18, and 20-21 are pending in the instant application where claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 15-16, and 20 have been amended and claim 21 is newly added. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and the claims have overcome each and every claim and drawing objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 01 July 2025, and are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that the feature of the collector and condenser lens are centered respectively on axes of a light emitter and an imaging device, examiner notes that Yamada was previously used to teach that limitation and had indicated via email dated 23 September 2025 that this amendment into the independent claims alone would not be sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. that the collector and condenser lenses are not coaxial, related to claim 15) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While this is suggested by the language of claim 15, it is not explicitly claimed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, 15 and 20 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. Regarding claims 1 and 15, these arguments are drawn to the axes of the light emitter and the image capture device being parallel to each other. Regarding claims 10 and 20, these arguments are drawn to the collector and condenser lenses having differing geometric characteristics (i.e. that a diameter of the collector lens is smaller than a radius of the condenser lens). These newly added features are addressed in the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to since the preamble of the claim states “the method according to claim 19”, however claim 19 has been cancelled as of the amendments filed 30 September 2025. Examiner will interpret the claim such claim 20 recites “the method of claim 15”, as appeared in the claims dated 28 November 2023.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
An “and” should be included into the claim before the final limitation; “…with the axis of the light emitter, and, the second collector lens…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 18 is 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.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites that the light emitter and collector lens are centered on the optical axis of the image capture device. However, independent claim 15 recites that the light emitter is not coaxial with an optical axis of the image capture device – for the light emitter to be centered on the optical axis of the image capture device, that would render the light emitter coaxial with the image capture device, prohibited by the independent claim. For the same reason, the collector lens required by claim 15 to be on-center with the axis of the light emitter – the collector lens must also not be coaxial with the optical axis of the image capture device and therefore cannot be centered on the optical axis of the image capture device. Examiner will interpret the claim such that the condenser lens must only be centered on the optical axis of the image capture device, as supported in claim 15.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0138849 A1 by Jason Michael Tucker-Schwartz et al. (herein after “Tucker”) in view of US 2020/0218052 A1 by Stanley S. Hong et al. (herein after “Hong”) in view of US 2018/0002670 A1 by Hiroshi Ishiwata (herein after “Ishiwata”), and further in view of US 2006/0036140 A1 by Simon Magarill (herein after “Magarill”). Examiner notes the reference Tucker was cited in the IDS filed 28 November 2023.
Regarding claim 1, Tucker discloses a system for microscopy (Tucker title; “oblique illumination microscopy”), the system comprising:
a sample (Tucker [0006] discloses the invention is for the differentiation of cells [sample]);
an oblique illumination system configured to obliquely illuminate the sample in the an imaging device configured to capture the images of the sample during the illumination of the sample (Tucker fig. 1 and [0023] disclose a highly-oblique illumination microscopy (HOIM) system 10 [oblique illumination system] obliquely illuminating the specimen [sample]; fig. 2a show raw HOIM images captured by a [0023] commercial clinical observation microscope 12 [i.e. imaging device is configured to capture images during illumination of the sample]);
wherein the oblique illumination system comprises:
a light emitter configured to provide illumination of the sample by emitting light wherein the illumination is used to capture images of the sample (Tucker [0023] and fig. 1 disclose an LED 14 providing illumination light to the specimen, such that the microscope 12 obtains image with the oblique LED as the illumination source); and
a collector lens for collecting the light from the light emitter, wherein the collector lens is disposed between the light emitter and the flowcell (Tucker fig. 1 and [0023] light from LED was collected by aspheric lens 16 [collector lens]; the lens 16 appears between the light emitter and the specimen [flowcell]);
a condenser lens for receiving and directing the light from the collector lens toward the sample in the flowcell, wherein the condense lens is disposed between the flowcell and the collector lens (Tucker fig. 1 and [0023] discloses a bi-convex lens 18 which refocuses the light from the collector lens 16 to the specimen [i.e. condenses and directs the light to the specimen]; the lens 18 appears between the collector lens 16 and specimen).
Tucker is silent to a flowcell containing the sample.
However, Hong does address this limitation. Tucker and Hong are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of light microscopy.
Hong discloses “a flowcell containing the sample” (Hong [0092] discloses that sample container 110 may be a flow cell containing a biological sample).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker to incorporate a flowcell containing the sample as suggested by Hong for the advantage of facilitating a structure to ensure the efficient flow of a sample during imaging.
Tucker when modified by Hong is silent to wherein the sample and the condenser lens are each centered on an optical axis of the imaging device such that the light from a center of the condenser lens illuminates the sample with no angle and light from an edge of the condenser lens illuminates the sample at an oblique angle, and wherein the axis of the light emitter is parallel with the optical axis of the imaging device.
However, Ishiwata does address this limitation. Tucker, Hong, and Ishiwata are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they same field of sample analysis using optical systems (microscopes, flow cytometry, etc.).
Ishiwata discloses to “wherein the sample and the condenser lens are each centered on an optical axis of the imaging device such that the light from a center of the condenser lens illuminates the sample with no angle and light from an edge of the condenser lens illuminates the sample at an oblique angle” (Ishiwata [0072] and fig. 10 discloses microscope 50 which comprises a sample S and an illumination optical system 51, comprising a condenser lens 50, where the condenser lens and sample are each centered on the optical axis of the imaging device [centered along the dotted line – they remain centered on the axis even though the axis is directed via mirrors i.e. 54 and 57]; the microscope 50 is an oblique illumination microscope – the light emitters 52 (and fig. 11) are decentered and therefore illuminate the sample at an oblique angle; given the optical axis depicted in fig. 10, light from the center of the condenser lens illuminate the sample perpendicularly [i.e. illuminates the sample with no angle]), and wherein the ais of the light emitter is parallel with the optical axis of the imaging device (Ishiwata abstract discloses a means for obtaining images of a biological sample, the images captured by a microscope; [0072] and fig. 10 disclose the microscope of Ishiwata comprising the light source 52 an imaging element 59, and a plurality of mirrors which bend the light such that the axis of the light emitter 52 is parallel with the optical axis of the imaging element 59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong and Yamada to incorporate wherein the axis of the light emitter is parallel with the optical axis of the imaging device and wherein the ais of the light emitter is parallel with the optical axis of the imaging device as suggested by Ishiwata for the advantage of introducing beam-shaping optics (i.e. mirrors) to reduce the size of the imaging system used to image the flowcell, as needed to build the optical system around the flowcell; additionally, the introduction of mirrors into the optical system is known in the art to reduce chromatic aberrations thereby decreasing any distortions of the incident and imaging beams.
Tucker when modified by Hong and Ishiwata is silent to wherein the collector lens is centered on an axis of the light emitter and is not coaxial with the optical axis of the imaging device.
However, Magarill does address this limitation. Tucker, Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the utilization of an optical system to illuminate a target area.
Magarill discloses “wherein the collector lens is centered on an axis of the light emitter and is not coaxial with the optical axis of the imaging device” (Magarill [0056]-[0057] and fig. 5 disclose an illumination system wherein a plurality of light generating elements 502a-502c are arranged along a same plane [as is the case with the light emitters of Ishiwata], where each light emitter has a corresponding collector lens 508a-508c; either collector lens 508a and 508c are centered on the axis of their respective light emitter; given the orientation of the light emitters within Magarill having parallel axes, the incorporation of Magarill’s orientation into the optical system of Ishiwata yields the axis of the second light emitter [and the first light emitter] being parallel to the optical axis of the imaging device, as seen in Ishiwata – that is, the middle light emitter 502b is considered as coaxial with the imaging device as it is along the axis directed to the target area without bending toward or away from its emission axis).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong and Ishiwata to incorporate wherein the collector lens is centered on an axis of the light emitter and is not coaxial with the optical axis of the imaging device as suggested by Magarill for the advantage of increasing the light overlap from different light generating elements [i.e. increasing the overlap of light from the first and second light emitters] to the target area (Magarill [0058]), increasing the intensity of light directed to the target area.
Regarding claim 2, Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill discloses the system of claim 1, and Tucker further teaches the system wherein the sample is one of a urine sample, a blood sample, a cerebrospinal fluid sample, a synovial fluid sample, a serous fluid sample, a pleural fluid sample, a pericardial fluid sample, a peritoneal fluid sample, and an amniotic fluid sample (Tucker [0006] discloses that in a preferred embodiment, the cells [within the specimen] are white blood cells [i.e. a blood sample]; [0051] discloses additional particle classifications on which the analysis of Tucker may be performed; the remaining listed sample types unconsidered due to the “one of” statement).
Regarding claim 3, Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill discloses the system of claim 1, and Tucker further teaches the system wherein the light emitter is a light emitting diode (Tucker [0023] discloses that the light source 14 is an LED [light emitting diode]).
Regarding claim 6, Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill discloses the system of claim 1, and Tucker further teaches wherein the sample within the flowcell is not moving (Hong has been cited to teach the flowcell in claim 1 above; Tucker [0006] the cells [i.e. within the specimen in fig. 1] may be stationary i.e. stationary within the flowcell), and the illumination from the light emitter is continuous (Tucker [0049] discloses that the illumination system provides illumination with high homogeneity [i.e. the illumination is continuous] – where a homogenous illumination is one without variations or irregularities [or continuous]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Hong, in view of Ishiwata, in view of Magarill, and further in view of US 2022/0197002 A1 by Hu Cang et al. (herein after “Cang”).
Regarding claim 4, Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill discloses the system of claim 1. Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill is silent to the system of claim 1, wherein the light emitter is an arc lamp.
However, Cang does address this limitation. Tucker, Hong, Ishiwata, Magarill, and Cang are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the utilization of an optical system to illuminate a target area.
Cang discloses the system of claim 1, “wherein the light emitter is an arc lamp” (Cang [0029] and fig. 1 disclose an arc lamp as an illumination source for the imaging system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill to incorporate wherein the light emitter is an arc lamp as suggested by Cang for the advantage of enabling the oblique illumination system to be used within a fluorescence microscopy setting (i.e. an additional type/method of microscopy), where arc lamps are typically used as illumination sources.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Hong, in view of Ishiwata, in view of Magarill, and further in view of US 2022/0187189 A1 by Michael D. Ward et al. (herein after “Ward”).
Regarding claim 5, Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill discloses the system of claim 1, and Tucker further teaches the system wherein the sample in the flowcell is moving (Hong has been cited to teach the flowcell in claim 1 above; Tucker [0006] discloses that the cells under investigation may be flowing, i.e. moving within the flowcell).
Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill is silent to the system of claim 1, wherein the illumination from the light emitter is light pulses that prevent blurring in the captured images.
However, Ward does address this limitation. Tucker, Hong, Ishiwata, Magarill, and Ward are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the utilization of an optical system to illuminate a target area.
Ward discloses the system of claim 1, “wherein the illumination from the light emitter is light pulses that prevent blurring in the captured images” (Ward fig. 4 shows light emitting lasers, and [0058] discloses that the lasers generate pulses of light [illumination from the light emitter is light pulses]; under MPEP 2114 II., the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art – in this case, the pulses of light are used specifically to prevent blurring in the captured images where the “prevention of blurring in the images” is considered a manner of operating the device; since Ward teaches that illumination from the light emitter are light pulses, the prevention of blurring does not differentiate the claim from Ward).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill to incorporate wherein the illumination from the light emitter is light pulses that prevent blurring in the captured images as suggested by Ward for the advantage of capturing a plurality of images as the particle moves through the flowcell, thereby increasing the obtained images for individual particles (see Ward fig. 4).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Hong, in view of Ishiwata, in view of Magarill, and further in view of US 2012/0086795 A1 by Albrecht Weiss et al. (“Weiss”). Examiner notes the reference Weiss was cited in the IDS filed 28 November 2023.
Regarding claim 7, Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill discloses the system of claim 1. Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill is silent to the system of claim 1, wherein the oblique illumination system further comprises an aperture mask comprising an aperture, wherein the aperture mask allows at least a portion of the light from the collector lens to pass through the aperture, and wherein the aperture is not centered on the aperture mask such that the illumination of the sample is non-symmetrical.
However, Weiss does address this limitation. Tucker, Hong, Ishiwata, Magarill, and Weiss are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the utilization of an optical system to illuminate a target area.
Weiss discloses the system of claim 1, “wherein the oblique illumination system further comprises an aperture mask comprising an aperture, wherein the aperture mask allows at least a portion of the light from the collector lens to pass through the aperture” (Weiss fig. 1 shows an embodiment of an oblique microscopy imaging system where [0080] an aperture wheel 8 has a plurality of [0081] apertures 9 [each being an aperture], where the [0085] fixed aperture stop 12 [aperture mask] facilitates the apertures 9; the aperture lets a portion of light from [0078] lens 6 [equivalent to the collector lens] through the aperture) “and wherein the aperture is not centered on the aperture mask such that the illumination of the sample is non-symmetrical” (Weiss figs. 3a and 3c shows a cross sectional view of aperture 9 within the fixed aperture stop 12 not being centered within the aperture stop; fig. 1 shows [0088] light paths from the aperture mask to the sample, where the illumination beam is not symmetrical [about the [0089] optical axis 16]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill to incorporate wherein the oblique illumination system further comprises an aperture mask comprising an aperture, wherein the aperture mask allows at least a portion of the light from the collector lens to pass through the aperture, and wherein the aperture is not centered on the aperture mask such that the illumination of the sample is non-symmetrical as suggested by Weiss for the advantage of optimizing the capture of camera images using the various settings available for change on the microscope illumination system including the use of apertures (Weiss [0050]).
Regarding claim 9, Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, Magarill, and Weiss discloses the system of claim 7. Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill is silent to the system of claim 7, wherein a diameter of the aperture is based on a type of the sample.
However, Weiss does address this limitation.
Weiss discloses the system of claim 7, “wherein a diameter of the aperture is based on a type of the sample” (Weiss [0051] discloses the optimization of camera images obtained using the microscope illumination system, where a plurality of camera images are obtained using stored parameters within the illumination system, including the rotation of the aperture wheel [i.e. choosing the diameter of the aperture]; the optimization process would be carried out depending on the sample and therefore, an optimal camera image for a unique sample will be found by finding the appropriate size diameter aperture).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill to incorporate wherein a diameter of the aperture is based on a type of the sample as suggested by Weiss for the advantage of optimizing the capture of camera images using the various settings available for change on the microscope illumination system including the use of apertures (Weiss [0050]).
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Hong, in view of Ishiwata, in view of Magarill, and further in view of CN 110195826 A by Ying Liu (herein after “Liu”).
Regarding claim 10, Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill discloses the system of claim 1. Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill is silent to the system of claim 1, wherein the collector lens has a diameter smaller than a radius of the condenser lens.
However, Liu does address this limitation. Tucker, Hong, Ishiwata, Magarill, and Liu are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the utilization of an optical system to illuminate a target area.
Liu discloses the system of claim 1, “wherein the collector lens has a diameter smaller than a radius of the condenser lens” (Liu page 3 paragraph 10 fig. 1 discloses an illumination system which is comprised of multiple lenses, including a collecting lens 2 [collector lens] which collects light from a light source 1 and directs the light to a spot lens [analogous to the condenser lens]; the irregular shape of the collecting lens includes a small diameter cup shaped portion opposite the light source; the diameter of this cup shaped portion appears as smaller than the radius of the condenser lens; additionally, the diameter and/or radius of the collector lens and condenser lens are result effective variables – optimization of a result effective variable has been shown to require only routine skill in the art; given that, a collector lens with a diameter that is smaller than the radius of the condenser lens may well be an optimum dimension for the optical system, as required by a user; see MPEP 2144.05 II(A) and II(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill to incorporate wherein the collector lens has a diameter smaller than a radius of the condenser lens as suggested by Liu for the advantage of reducing the leakage of light not collected by the collection lens via the refractive and reflective surfaces 21 and 23, efficiently directing light not captured by the cup shape of the collector lens to the condenser lens 3 (Liu page 3 paragraph 12 – page 4 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 11, Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, and Magarill discloses the system of claim 10, and Tucker further teaches the system wherein the light emitter is centered with respect to the collector lens (Tucker fig. 1 shows LED 14 [light emitter] centered with respect to the collector lens 16).
Regarding claim 12, Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, Magarill, and Liu discloses the system of claim 10. Tucker when modified by Hong and Ishiwata is silent to the system of claim 10, wherein the oblique illumination system comprises a second light emitter configured to provide illumination of the sample by emitting light and a second collector lens centered with respect to the second light emitter, wherein the second collector lens has a diameter smaller than the radius of the condenser lens and is not intersected by any axis which intersects the collector lens and is parallel to the optical axis of the imaging device.
However, Magarill does address this limitation.
Magarill discloses the system of claim 10, “wherein the oblique illumination system comprises a second light emitter configured to provide illumination of the sample by emitting light and a second collector lens centered with respect to the second light emitter, wherein the second collector lens has a diameter smaller than the radius of the condenser lens and is not intersected by any axis which intersects the collector lens and is parallel to the optical axis of the imaging device” (Magarill [0056]-[0057] and fig. 5 disclose an illumination system wherein a plurality of light generating elements are arranged along a same plane, and where each emitter comprises a collector lens [i.e. a first and a second collector lens; 502a here considered the second light emitter and 508a considered the second collector, where the second light emitter is not intersected by any axis that intersects the [first] collector lens – i.e. the axis of a first light emitter 502b within Magarill]; given the orientation of the light emitters within Magarill having parallel axes, the incorporation of Magarill’s orientation into the optical system of Ishiwata yields the axis of the second light emitter [and the first light emitter] being parallel to the optical axis of the imaging device, as seen in Ishiwata; additionally, given the plurality of emitters and collection lenses seen in Magarill, a prima facie case of obviousness exists under MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Duplication of Parts, where the shape/dimensions of the collector lens and condenser lens within Liu renders obvious the requirement that the second collector lens has a diameter smaller than the radius of the condenser lens in light of the plurality of light emitters and collector lenses seen in fig. 5 of Magarill).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong and Ishiwata to incorporate wherein the oblique illumination system comprises a second light emitter configured to provide illumination of the sample by emitting light and a second collector lens centered with respect to the second light emitter, wherein the second collector lens has a diameter smaller than the radius of the condenser lens and is not intersected by any axis which intersects the collector lens and is parallel to the optical axis of the imaging device as suggested by Magarill for the advantage of increasing the light overlap from different light generating elements [i.e. increasing the overlap of light from the first and second light emitters] to the target area (Magarill [0058]), increasing the intensity of light directed to the target area.
Regarding claim 14, Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, Magarill, and Liu discloses the system of claim 12. Tucker when modified by Hong and Ishiwata is silent to the system of claim 12 wherein:
the oblique illumination system comprises a second collector lens for collecting the light from the second light emitter, wherein the second collector lens is disposed between the second light emitter and the flowcell;
the second light emitter is centered with respect to the second collector lens;
the second collector lens is a different size than the condenser lens and the second collector lens is not coaxial with the optical axis of the imaging device; and
the light emitter is not centered with respect to the second collector lens.
However, Magarill does address this limitation.
Magarill discloses the system of claim 12, “wherein:
the oblique illumination system comprises a second collector lens for collecting light from the second light emitter, wherein the second collector lens is disposed between the second light emitter and the flowcell” (Magarill fig. 5; as indicated in claim 12, a collector lens 508a appears in front of light emitter 502a [second collector lens and second light emitter]; the collector lens 508a appears between the target area and the light emitter [target area here is considered analogous to the flowcell of Hong]);
“the second light emitter is centered with respect to the second collector lens” (Magarill fig. 5 shows each light emitter centered with respect to the corresponding light emitter);
“the second collector lens is a different size than the condenser lens” (Magarill fig. 5 discloses three light emitters, each of which has a collection lens and a condenser lens – since “size” is not defined within the claim, and given the depiction of different geometries for the collection lens and condenser lenses depending on if the light emitter is on or off the optical axis of the light emitter 502b, a prima facie case of obviousness exists under MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Changes in Size/Proportion as one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes the difference in size between the lenses as an obvious change and dependent on where the light needs to be directed), “and the second collector lens is not coaxial with the optical axis of the imaging device” (Magarill fig. 5 shows the second light emitter 502a being not coaxial with the light emitter 502b which does not need to be redirected via condenser lens to the target area, and is considered as being the optical axis of the imaging device in light of Ishiwata, directed to the target area without bending toward or away from the principle axis; therefore, the second light emitter 502a is not coaxial with the optical axis defined by light emission of 502b); “and
the light emitter is not centered with respect to the second collector lens” (Magarill fig. 5; light emitter 502b [analogous to the [first] light emitter] is not centered with the collector lens 508a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong and Ishiwata to incorporate wherein the oblique illumination system comprises a second collector lens for collecting the light from the second light emitter, wherein the second collector lens is disposed between the second light emitter and the flowcell; the second light emitter is centered with respect to the second collector lens; the second collector lens is a different size than the condenser lens and the second collector lens is not coaxial with the optical axis of the imaging device; and the light emitter is not centered with respect to the second collector lens as suggested by Magarill for the advantage of increasing the light overlap from different light generating elements [i.e. increasing the overlap of light from the first and second light emitters] to the target area (Magarill [0058]), increasing the intensity of light directed to the target area.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Hong, in view of Ishiwata, in view of Magarill, in view of Liu, and further in view of Weiss.
Regarding claim 13, Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, Magarill, and Liu discloses the system of claim 12. Tucker when modified by Hong, Ishiwata, Magarill, and Liu is silent to the system of claim 12, wherein the light emitter is configured to provide illumination of the sample by emitting light having a first color, and the second light emitter is configured to provide illumination of the sample by emitting light having a second color, wherein the second color and the first color are different colors.
However, Weiss does address this limitation. Tucker, Hong, Ishiwata, Magarill, Liu, and Weiss are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the utilization of an optical system to illuminate a target area.
Weiss discloses the system of claim 12, “wherein the light emitter is configured to provide illumination of the sample by emitting light having a first color, and the second light emitter is configured to provide illumination of the sample by emitting light having a second color, wherein the second color and the first color are different colors” (Weiss fig. 2 and [0031] disclose that the different LEDs [light sources 2 and 3] can be switched at will which allows for switching between the visible spectrum and the ultraviolet spectrum i.e. one LED color is in the visible spectrum, the second LED color is in the UV spectrum [first color and second color are different colors]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong, Ishiwata, Magarill, and Liu to incorporate wherein the light emitter is configured to provide illumination of the sample by emitting light having a first color, and the second light emitter is configured to provide illumination of the sample by emitting light having a second color, wherein the second color and the first color are different colors as suggested by Weiss for the advantage of optimizing the capture of camera images using the various settings available for change on the microscope illumination system including the changes to the light sources (Weiss [0050]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Hong in view of US 2014/02965536 A1 by Kazuhiro Yamada et al. (herein after “Yamada”), and further in view of Ishiwata.
Regarding claim 15, Tucker discloses a method of microscopy (Tucker title; oblique illumination microscopy; [0041] states a highly oblique method), the method comprising:
obliquely illuminating a sample using a light emitter (Tucker fig. 1 and [0023] discloses a highly-oblique illumination microscopy system 10 obliquely illuminating a specimen [sample]; [0023] and fig. 1 disclose an LED 14 providing illumination light to the specimen [light emitter]);
capturing an image of the sample using an image capture device when the sample is obliquely illuminated (Tucker fig. 2a show raw HOIM images captured by a [0023] commercial clinical observation microscope 12 [i.e. image capture device during oblique illumination of the sample]);
wherein obliquely illuminating the sample comprising:
positioning the light emitter to be not coaxial with an optical axis of the image capture device (Tucker fig. 1 the LED 14 is shown to be not coaxial with the optical axis of the image capture device – an angle of 82° is shown between the two axes),
collecting light from the light emitter by a collector lens positioned on-center with an axis of the light emitter (Tucker fig. 1 the collector lens 16 is shown in front of the LED light emitter 14 and is shown as on center with the axis of the light emitter), and
directing by a condenser lens, light from the collector lens toward the sample to provide the oblique illumination (Tucker fig. 1 and [0023] discloses a bi-convex lens 18 which refocuses the light from the collector lens 16 to the specimen [i.e. condenses and directs the light to provide the oblique illumination])
Tucker is silent to illuminating a sample in a flowcell.
However, Hong does address this limitation. Tucker and Hong are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of light microscopy.
Hong discloses “illuminating a sample in a flowcell” (Hong [0092] discloses that sample container 110 may be a flow cell containing a biological sample).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker to incorporate illuminating a sample in a flowcell as suggested by Hong for the advantage of facilitating a structure to ensure the efficient flow of a sample during imaging.
Tucker when modified by Hong is silent to a condenser lens centered on the optical axis of the image capture device.
However, Yamada does address this limitation. Tucker, Hong, and Yamada are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of sample analysis using optical systems (microscopes, flow cytometry, etc.).
Yamada discloses “a condenser lens centered on the optical axis of the image capture device” (Yamada fig. 3A and [0040], [0043]-[0044] and [0051] discloses the sample D1 and condenser lens 107 are centered on the optical axis of the photodiode 205 [imaging device]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong to incorporate the condenser lens centered on the optical axis of the image capture device as suggested by Yamada for the advantage of having properly aligned components to reduce any unintended effects of light aberration from misaligned components, i.e. from components intended to be centered on either an emission optical axis or an image capturing optical axis.
Tucker when modified by Hong and Yamada is silent to wherein the axis of the light emitter is parallel with the optical axis of the image capture device.
However, Ishiwata does address this limitation. Tucker, Hong, Yamada, and Ishiwata are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of sample analysis using optical systems (microscopes, flow cytometry, etc.).
Ishiwata discloses wherein the ais of the light emitter is parallel with the optical axis of the image capture device (Ishiwata abstract discloses a means for obtaining images of a biological sample, the images captured by a microscope; [0030] and fig. 1 disclose the microscope of Ishiwata comprising a light source 4 an imaging element 15 [image capture device], and a plurality of mirrors which bend the light such that the axis of the light emitter is parallel with the optical axis of the imaging element 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong and Yamada to incorporate wherein the axis of the light emitter is parallel with the optical axis of the imaging device as suggested by Ishiwata for the advantage of introducing beam-shaping optics (i.e. mirrors) to reduce the size of the imaging system used to image the flowcell, as needed to build the optical system around the flowcell; additionally, the introduction of mirrors into the optical system is known in the art to reduce chromatic aberrations thereby decreasing any distortions of the incident and imaging beams.
Claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Hong, in view of Yamada, in view of Ishiwata, and further in view of US 2022/0187189 A1 by Michael D. Ward et al. (herein after “Ward”).
Regarding claim 16, Tucker when modified by Hong, Yamada, and Ishiwata discloses the method of claim 15, and Tucker further teaches the method wherein the sample in the flowcell is moving (Hong has been cited to teach the flowcell in claim 1 above; Tucker [0006] discloses that the cells under investigation may be flowing, i.e. moving within the flowcell), and the light emitter is a light emitting diode (Tucker fig. 1 label 14 and [0023] disclose the light source 14 is a light emitting diode LED).
Tucker when modified by Hong, Yamada, and Ishiwata is silent to the method of claim 15, wherein the illumination from the light emitter is light pulses that prevent blurring in the captured images.
However, Ward does address this limitation. Tucker, Hong, Yamada, Ishiwata, and Ward are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of light microscopy.
Ward discloses the method of claim 15, “wherein the illumination from the light emitter is light pulses that prevent blurring in the captured images” (Ward fig. 4 shows light emitting lasers, and [0058] discloses that the lasers generate pulses of light [illumination from the light emitter is light pulses]; the illumination light being pulsed during image capture to prevent blurring in the obtained images is obvious to one of ordinary skill, for a moving sample within the flowcell – analogous to a strobe light, pulses of illumination allow for crisp snapshots of moving samples).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong, Yamada, and Ishiwata to incorporate wherein the illumination from the light emitter is light pulses that prevent blurring in the captured images as suggested by Ward for the advantage of capturing a plurality of images as the particle moves through the flowcell, thereby increasing the obtained images for individual particles (see Ward fig. 4).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Hong, in view of Yamada, in view of Ishiwata, and further in view of Weiss.
Regarding claim 17, Tucker when modified by Hong, Yamada, and Ishiwata discloses the method of claim 15, and Tucker further discloses the method wherein obliquely illuminating the sample comprises:
receiving light from the light emitter by a collector lens (Tucker fig. 1 and [0023] discloses that light from LED is collected by aspheric lens 16 [collector lens]); and
directing light toward the sample by a condenser lens to provide the oblique illumination (Tucker fig. 1 and [0023] discloses a bi-convex lens 18 which refocuses the light from the collector lens 16 to the specimen [i.e. condenses and directs the light to the specimen] to provide the oblique illumination).
Tucker when modified by Hong, Yamada, and Ishiwata is silent to the method of claim 15 wherein obliquely illuminating the sample comprises: blocking light from the collector lens at all locations of an aperture mask except through an aperture that is not coaxial with an optical axis of the image capture device; and directing the light from the aperture toward the sample by a condenser lens to provide the oblique illumination.
However, Weiss does address this limitation. Tucker, Hong, Yamada, Ishiwata, and Weiss are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of light microscopy.
Weiss discloses the method of claim 15, “wherein obliquely illuminating the sample comprises:
blocking light from the collector lens at all locations of an aperture mask except through an aperture that is not coaxial with an optical axis of the image capture device” (Weiss fig. 1 shows an embodiment of an oblique microscopy imaging system where [0080] an aperture wheel 8 has a plurality of [0081] apertures 9 [each being an aperture], where the [0085] fixed aperture stop 12 [aperture mask] facilitates the apertures 9; the aperture lets a portion of light from [0078] lens 6 [equivalent to the collector lens] through the aperture; the aperture stop 12 is coaxial with the optical axis of the capture device; Weiss figs. 3a and 3c show aperture 9 within the fixed aperture stop not being centered within the aperture stop, and is therefore not coaxial with the optical axis of the capture device); “and
directing the light from the aperture toward the sample by a condenser lens to provide the oblique illumination” (Weiss fig. 1 shows light exiting the aperture stop 12 and being incident to lens 13 [equivalent to the condenser lens], and ultimately directed obliquely to the sample).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong, Yamada, and Ishiwata to incorporate blocking light from the collector lens at all locations of an aperture mask except through an aperture that is not coaxial with an optical axis of the image capture device; and directing the light from the aperture toward the sample by a condenser lens to provide the oblique illumination as suggested by Weiss for the advantage of optimizing the capture of camera images using the various settings available for change on the microscope illumination system including the use of apertures (Weiss [0050]).
Regarding claim 18, Tucker when modified by Hong, Yamada, Ishiwata, and Weiss discloses the method of claim 17. Tucker when modified by Hong is silent to the method of claim 17, wherein the light emitter, the condenser lens, and the collector lens are each centered on the optical axis of the image capture device.
However, Yamada does address this limitation.
Yamada discloses the method of claim 17, “wherein the light emitter, the condenser lens, and the collector lens are each centered on the optical axis of the image capture device” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Yamada fig. 3A and [0043] discloses condenser lens 107 [collector lens and condensing lens] is aligned on the optical axis of the photodiode 205 [image capture device]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong to incorporate wherein the light emitter, the condenser lens, and the collector lens are each centered on the optical axis of the image capture device as suggested by Yamada for the advantage of having properly aligned components to reduce any unintended effects of light aberration from misaligned components.
Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Hong, in view of Yamada, in view of Ishiwata, and further in view of CN 110195826 A by Ying Liu (herein after “Liu”).
Regarding claim 20, Tucker when modified by Hong, Yamada, and Ishiwata discloses the method of claim 15 (see Claim Objection above for discussion of dependence). Tucker when modified by Hong, Yamada, and Ishiwata is silent to the method of claim 15, wherein the collector lens has a diameter smaller than a radius of the condenser lens.
However, Liu does address this limitation. Tucker, Hong, Yamada, Ishiwata, and Liu are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of light microscopy.
Liu discloses the method of claim 15, “wherein the collector lens has a diameter smaller than a radius of the condenser lens” (Liu page 3 paragraph 10 fig. 1 discloses an illumination system which is comprised of multiple lenses, including a collecting lens 2 [collector lens] which collects light from a light source 1 and directs the light to a spot lens [analogous to the condenser lens]; the irregular shape of the collecting lens includes a small diameter cup shaped portion opposite the light source; the diameter of this cup shaped portion appears as smaller than the radius of the condenser lens; additionally, the diameter and/or radius of the collector lens and condenser lens are result effective variables – optimization of a result effective variable has been shown to require only routine skill in the art; given that, a collector lens with a diameter that is smaller than the radius of the condenser lens may well be an optimum dimension for the optical system, as required by a user; see MPEP 2144.05 II(A) and II(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong, Yamada, and Ishiwata to incorporate wherein the collector lens has a diameter smaller than a radius of the condenser lens as suggested by Liu for the advantage of reducing the leakage of light not collected by the collection lens via the refractive and reflective surfaces 21 and 23, efficiently directing light not captured by the cup shape of the collector lens to the condenser lens 3 (Liu page 3 paragraph 12 – page 4 paragraph 1).
Claims 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Hong, in view of Yamada, in view of Ishiwata, in view of Liu, and further in view of Magarill.
Regarding claim 21, Tucker when modified by Hong, Yamada, Ishiwata, and Liu discloses the method of claim 20. Tucker when modified by Hong, Yamada, Ishiwata, and Liu is silent to the method of claim 20, wherein:
the method comprises obliquely illuminating the sample in the flowcell using a second light emitter;
obliquely illuminating the sample in the flowcell using the second light emitter comprises:
collecting light from the second light emitter by a second collector lens positioned on-center with an axis of the second light emitter; and
directing, by the condenser lens centered on the optical axis of the image capture device, light from the second collector lens toward the sample;
the second light emitter and the second collector lens are not coaxial with the optical axis of the image capture device or with the axis of the light emitter; [and]
the second collector lens is not intersected by any axis which intersects the collector lens and is parallel to the optical axis of the image capture device.
However, Magarill does address these limitations. Tucker, Hong, Yamada, Ishiwata, Liu and Magarill are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the utilization of an optical system to illuminate a target area.
Magarill discloses the method of claim 20, “the method comprises obliquely illuminating the sample in the flowcell using a second light emitter” (Magarill fig. 5 and [0056]-[0057] discloses an illumination system wherein a plurality of light generating elements are arranged along a same plane, the light emitter being analogous to 502b and the second light emitter being 502a; Magarill abstract describes the illumination system as illuminating a target area – taken in combination with Tucker, Hong, Yamada, Ishiwata, and Liu, the second light emitter disclosed in Magarill may be used to illuminate the claimed flowcell [i.e. a target area]), “obliquely illuminating the sample in the flowcell using the second light emitter comprises:
collecting light from the second light emitter by a second collector lens positioned on-center with an axis of the second light emitter” (Magarill fig. 5 and [0056]-[0057] discloses that each light emitter 502a (and 502b, [first] light emitter) has a corresponding collector lens 508a (and 508a, [first] collector lens); the lens is centered with respect to the axis of the second light emitter 502a and collects light from the emitter 502a), “and
directing, by the condenser lens centered on the optical axis of the image capture device, light from the second collector lens toward the sample” (Magarill [0057] discloses imaging lens units 512a and 512b – these lens units are analogous to the claimed condenser lens; the lenses 512a and 512b direct light; it has been shown in the combination of Tucker, Hong, Yamada, Ishiwata, and Liu that the claimed condensing lens is centered on the optical axis of the image capture device; were it to be argued that the imaging lens units 512a and 512b cannot be considered analogous to condenser lens since they are a plurality of lens units instead of a single lens, examiner notes that in Magarill [0043], it is described that the imaging lens units may be formed by a lens sheet, and may be any desired shape, so as better to match the light incoming from the light emitters, such that the imaging units [condenser lens] may considered a single lens centered on an optical axis which does not bend toward or away from the axis into the target area; the axis of light emitter 502b is considered as the optical axis of the image capture device in light of Ishiwata, wherein light incident to the portion of the condenser lens 512b does not bend toward or away from the emission axis and is centered on the image capture device seen in Ishiwata),
“the second light emitter and the second collector lens are not coaxial with the optical axis of the image capture device or with the axis of the light emitter” (given the reasoning for the preceding limitation, the second light emitter 502a and second collector lens 508a are not along the axis of the image capture device or with the axis of the light emitter [defined by the axis of the light emitter 502b]), “and
the second collector lens is not intersected by any axis which intersects the collector lens and is parallel to the optical axis of the image capture device” (Magarill; the second collector lens 508a is not intersected by any axis which intersects the collector lens 508b [see the axes along which the light emitter and second light emitter and the collector lens and second collector lens – they are parallel before being incident to the condenser lens]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tucker in view of Hong, Yamada, Ishiwata, and Liu to incorporate wherein the method comprises obliquely illuminating the sample in the flowcell using a second light emitter; obliquely illuminating the sample in the flowcell using the second light emitter comprises: collecting light from the second light emitter by a second collector lens positioned on-center with an axis of the second light emitter; and directing, by the condenser lens centered on the optical axis of the image capture device, light from the second collector lens toward the sample; the second light emitter and the second collector lens are not coaxial with the optical axis of the image capture device or with the axis of the light emitter; the second collector lens is not intersected by any axis which intersects the collector lens and is parallel to the optical axis of the image capture device as suggested by Magarill for the advantage of increasing the light overlap from different light generating elements [i.e. increasing the overlap of light from the first and second light emitters] to the target area (Magarill [0058]), increasing the intensity of light directed to the target area.
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 JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 R 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877