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 Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation in the prior Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/16/2025 was not traversed and remains. Additionally, claim 23, as a result of the amendment to claim 1, requires a rejection under 35 USC 112(b) which can be found below.
Applicant's arguments, see page 7, filed 01/14/2026, Claim 1 has been amended to include the limitations previously set forth in dependent claim 19. With respect to the rejection of amended claim 1 under 35 USC 102 and USC 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues:
“Saggau fails to teach wherein the at least one detector is a single element detector, as recited in present claim 1. Diebold fails to remedy this deficiency. Applicant submits that the imaging system taught by Diebold is very different from the presently claimed imaging system as well as the imaging system taught by Saggau. Specifically, Diebold imprints only a line of light dots onto the sample; each dot blinking with a well-defined frequency. This expressly requires the presence of a radio-frequency comb generator, incompatible with the prior art by Saggau. The signal from a given dot is extracted from the resulting signal by means of a Fourier transform. See Diebold at ,[0070]. As such, Diebold' s imaging system is fundamentally different from the apparatus of present claim 1, as it is not "configured for projecting a plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns onto the sample by repositioning and/or phase-shifting the first and/or the second electromagnetic radiation beam with respect to each other". Additionally, Diebold probes only a "line" through the sample, while relying on conventional scanning or flow/sample movement to capture spatial information along the other image-axis.
Applicant submits that the Examiner would have to so substantively change the prior art to integrate the features of Diebold with Saggau such that it would change the principle of operation of the prior art. Thus, the prior art cannot be combined in such a way as to lead one to the present claims.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicants’ interpretation of the references. Diebold et al. (US Pub 2016/0003741 A1)(hereinafter, “Diebold”) teaches a flexible frequency-multiplexed imaging framework (“the flexibility afforded by digitally synthesizing the amplitude and phase of the radiofrequency spectrum provides complete, real-time control over the number of pixels, pixel frequency spacing, pixel non-uniformity and field of view”, [0071]) in which spatial information maybe encoded via radiofrequency modulation (“the light emitted from each pixel is modulated at a particular radiofrequency”, [0070]) and retrieved using Fourier or lock in demodulation (“the signal … is differentiated either by performing a short time Fourier transform, or demodulating the signal … using parallel digital lock-in amplification”, [0070-0071]), and is not limited to a line-scanning geometry ([0070-0071]). When integrating at least one detector to be a single element detector of Diebold to Saggau et al. (US Pub 2009/0219607 A1)(hereinafter, “Saggau”) system, the optical excitation and interference-based illumination mechanisms of Saggau remain unchanged. Diebold does not modify the standing-wave or structured illumination generation, but instead replaces CCD/EMCCD cameras of Saggau with a photomultiplier tube-based detection. Saggau and Diebold both operate within phase- and frequency-controlled optical systems, and integration would merely replace the detection and readout stage without changing the underlying interference-based imaging principle of Saggau. Accordingly, combining the teachings would not render Saggau inoperable or change its principle of operation, but would constitute a predictable substitution to improve detection sensitivity and imaging speed ([0069-0070]). Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a) in view of Diebold is maintained.
Regarding claims 26-27 and 31, applicant argues:
“Trusiak does not project different light patterns onto the sample. Rather, Trusiak merely modulates the light in the detection-path of their imaging system. Thus, Trusiak also fails to remedy the deficiencies of Saggau”.
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. project different light patterns onto the sample,) 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). Therefore, the rejections of claims 26-27 and 31 under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“beams-managing elements, which are configured to guide the two electromagnetic radiation beams and to direct them onto the sample” in claim 1. Here, “elements” is a generic placeholder (prong 1), modified by the function “configured to guide the two electromagnetic radiation beams and to direct them onto the sample ” (prong 2), and not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function ( prong 3). Specifically, the claimed beams-managing elements which is not sufficient structure to perform the function of guide the two electromagnetic radiation beams and to direct them onto the sample. The beams-managing elements are optical components ([0017]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 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 23, it recites “the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises a line-array of detectors configured to capture output signals along one imaging axis” is unclear how the device can have both a "line-array detector" of the dependent claim and a "single element detector" of the parent claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 17-18, 20-22, 24-25, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saggau et al. (US Pub 2009/0219607 A1)(hereinafter, “Saggau”) in view of Diebold et al. (US Pub 2016/0003741 A1)(hereinafter, “Diebold”).
Regarding claim 1, Saggau teaches an apparatus for obtaining an image of a sample(discloses an imaging system used to capture the fluorescence image of a sample, [0079]), the apparatus comprising:
a first and a second electromagnetic radiation beam ([0072] teaches the single laser beam is split into two distinct beams after passing through the beam expander and beam splitter, creating two beams from one laser source, figure 5);
beams-managing elements, which are configured to guide the two electromagnetic radiation beams and to direct them onto the sample (teaches beam splitter 301, a pair of AODs (x.sub.1AOD 302 and x.sub.2AOD 303), a dichroic mirror 306, an objective lens 308, that work together to manage, guide , and direct the two laser beams onto the sample, [0068]), the beams-managing elements being arranged such that the two electromagnetic radiation beams create a spatially oscillating interference pattern at the sample (discloses that two beams interfere at the sample to form a lateral periodic interference pattern, [0078]);
at least one detector (CCD camera 304, [0068], CCD camera 704, [0079]) configured to detect an output signal emitted from the sample (uses a cooled CCD camera to capture the fluorescence emitted from the sample, [0079]);
wherein the apparatus is configured for projecting a plurality of spatially oscillating
interference patterns onto the sample by repositioning and/or phase-shifting the first and/or
the second electromagnetic radiation beam with respect to each other( discloses projects multiple interference patterns onto the sample by electronically phase-shifting and repositioning the beams using AODs, [0069], [0074], and [0079]), and
wherein each of the plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns results in
a corresponding output signal, and wherein the apparatus is configured to obtain the image based on the plurality of the output signals (teaches three separate interference patterns are sequentially projected, each pattern causes the sample to emit a distinct modulated fluorescence signal, which is captured by a CCD camera, theses multiple signals are combined computationally to produce the final high-resolution image, [0079]).
However, Saggau fails to disclose wherein the at least one detector is a single element detector.
Diebold teaches wherein the at least one detector is a single element detector( “detection is preferably performed by at least one photomultiplier tube (PMT),” [0069-0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate at least one detector to be a single element detector of Diebold to Saggau to enhance photon counting efficiency and sensitivity and imaging speed ([0069-0070]).
Regarding claim 17, Saggau teaches wherein the first and the second electromagnetic radiation beams are generated by splitting electromagnetic radiation from a single source ([0072] teaches the single laser beam is split into two distinct beams after passing through the beam expander and beam splitter, creating two beams from one laser source, figure 5), or by two identical sources of electromagnetic radiation.
Regarding claim 18, Saggau teaches wherein the spatially oscillating interference patterns differ from each other in at least one parameter, the parameter being selected from a list of spatial frequency(teaches resolution depends on angle, beam angle controls period, [0079]), phase (teaches that phase is varied between different interference patterns, [0079]), amplitude, or orientation in space (discloses angular orientation, [0097]).
Regarding claim 20, Saggau teaches wherein the image is a two-dimensional projection(2D fluorescence images, [0097] and [0102]) or a three-dimensional reconstruction (teaches a true 3D imaging method, [0080]).
Regarding claim 21, Saggau teaches wherein the apparatus is configured for sending the detected signals to a signal processing unit(teaches a computer-based processing system that receives the image data from the detector, [0089]), and wherein the signal processing unit is configured to reconstruct the image using Fourier theory (discloses image reconstruction using Fourier transforms, [0098]).
Regarding claim 22, Saggau teaches wherein the signal processing unit is configured to reconstruct the image by leveraging that the weight of a spatially oscillating interference pattern across the sample is determined by subtracting the signal acquired from one spatially oscillating interference pattern from the signal acquired from a 180-degree phase-shifted spatially oscillating interference pattern (teaches acquiring one image for each of three different phases ψ, ψ+90°, ψ+180°, combined with sinusoidal Fourier weighting for image reconstruction, [0079]).
Regarding claim 24, Saggau teaches wherein each of the plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns is arranged to overlap at a stationary image position (teaches the sample remains fixed, while different SW patterns are applied to the same sample region by varying the phase of the beams, [0079]), and wherein the repositioning and/or adjustment of the beams-managing elements changes an overlap angle and/or relative phase between the first and/or the second electromagnetic radiation beam at the stationary image position, thereby creating the plurality of interference patterns at the stationary image position (teaches changing angular orientation and phase of interference patterns through AODs, generating multiple interference patterns at the same sample position, [0097-0098]).
Regarding claim 25, Saggau teaches wherein the sample is arranged to move while the plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns are applied thereto (teaches a moving sample via a translational stage, while applying multiple SW patterns during image capture, [0094-0095]).
Regarding claim 28, Saggau teaches wherein the plurality of output signals are generated by electromagnetic radiation scattered from the sample or by fluorescence (discloses that the output signals derive from fluorescence, [0079]) or by other types of radiation.
Regarding claim 29, Saggau teaches wherein the first and second electromagnetic radiation beams are light beams (discloses two laser light beams directed and interfered via AODs, [0072-0073]) and, wherein the at least one detector is a photodetector (CCD camera 704, [0079]).
Regarding claim 30, Saggau teaches a method for generating an image of a sample ([0079]), the method comprising:
generating a first and a second electromagnetic radiation beam ([0072] teaches the single laser beam is split into two distinct beams after passing through the beam expander and beam splitter, creating two beams from one laser source, figure 5);
intersecting the first and a second electromagnetic radiation beam and spatially manipulating at least one of the first and second beams (teaches beam splitter 301, a pair of AODs (x.sub.1AOD 302 and x.sub.2AOD 303), a dichroic mirror 306, an objective lens 308, that work together to manage, guide , and direct the two laser beams onto the sample, [0068]) to create a plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns (discloses that two beams interfere at the sample to form a lateral periodic interference pattern, [0078]);
sequentially projecting the plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns onto the sample(teaches sequential projection of multiple phase-shifted SW patterns onto the same sample, [0079]);
detecting, by at least one detector (CCD camera 704, [0079]), a plurality of output signals generated from the plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns projected onto the sample ( uses a cooled CCD camera to capture the fluorescence emitted from the sample, [0079]);
generating the image based on the output signals detected by the photodetector and the known shape of the projected spatially oscillating interference patterns(teaches three separate interference patterns are sequentially projected, each pattern causes the sample to emit a distinct modulated fluorescence signal, which is captured by a CCD camera, theses multiple signals are combined computationally to produce the final high-resolution image, [0079]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saggau et al. (US Pub 2009/0219607 A1)(hereinafter, “Saggau”) in view of Diebold et al. (US Pub 2016/0003741 A1)(hereinafter, “Diebold”), further in view of Chalmers et al. (US Pub 2017/0314914 A1)(hereinafter, “Chalmers”).
Regarding claim 23, Saggau in view of Diebold teaches all limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the apparatus comprises a line-array of detectors configured to capture output signals along one imaging axis.
Chalmers teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a line-array of detectors (detector can be linear arrays, [0030]) configured to capture output signals along one imaging axis (teaches detector captures spatially resolved interference patterns; each pixel corresponds to a sample point, images and interference patterns mapped spatially along sample surface via detector pixels, [0019-0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a line-array of detectors configured to capture output signals along one imaging axis of Chalmers to Saggau in view of Diebold to enhance parallel data acquisition, improve spatial resolution and increase imaging speed ([0030]).
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saggau et al. (US Pub 2009/0219607 A1)(hereinafter, “Saggau”) in view of Diebold et al. (US Pub 2016/0003741 A1)(hereinafter, “Diebold”), in view of Trusiak et al. (Single-shot two-frame π-shifted spatially multiplexed interference phase microscopy, 2019)(hereinafter, “Trusiak”).
Regarding claim 26, Saggau in view of Diebold teaches all limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns is arranged at a separate position along a predetermined trajectory, and, wherein the sample is arranged to move along this trajectory while the plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns are applied thereto.
Trusiak teaches wherein each of the plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns is arranged at a separate position along a predetermined trajectory (discloses the π-hologram generation (from two-channel holograms), project multiple holographic patterns on the microbeads, figure 4c), and, wherein the sample is arranged to move along this trajectory while the plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns are applied thereto(discloses flowing microbeads are moving along a trajectory in a water-filled microchamber, as the microbeads move, holograms are projected onto them, and the phase signals from the microbeads are detected as they pass through the system, section 3.3, figure 4a, 4b and 4d).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the concept of arrange each of the plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns at a separate position along a predetermined trajectory, as well as enable the sample to move along this trajectory of Trusiak to Saggau in view of Diebold to enable faster and more precise image generation, improving overall system performance and efficiency(section 3.3).
Regarding claim 27, Saggau in view of Diebold fails to teach wherein the sample is arranged in a capillary, and wherein the sample is caused to move along the capillary or by different pressures applied at the two ends of the capillary or by capillary action.
Trusiak teaches wherein the sample is arranged in a capillary (figure 4a shows the microbeads are flowing in a water-filled microchamber), and wherein the sample is caused to move along the capillary (figure 4a shows the microbeads move along a defined path in the microchamber) or by different pressures applied at the two ends of the capillary or by capillary action.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the concept of arrange the sample in a capillary and move it along the capillary of Trusiak to Saggau in view of Diebold to enhance real-time, high-speed data acquisition(section 3.2).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saggau et al. (US Pub 2009/0219607 A1)(hereinafter, “Saggau”) in view of Trusiak et al. (Single-shot two-frame π-shifted spatially multiplexed interference phase microscopy, 2019)(hereinafter, “Trusiak”).
Regarding claim 31, Saggau teaches a method for generating an image of a sample ([0079]), the method comprising:
generating a first and a second electromagnetic radiation beam ([0072] teaches the single laser beam is split into two distinct beams after passing through the beam expander and beam splitter, creating two beams from one laser source, figure 5);
intersecting the first and a second electromagnetic radiation beam and spatially manipulating at least one of the first and second beams (teaches beam splitter 301, a pair of AODs (x.sub.1AOD 302 and x.sub.2AOD 303), a dichroic mirror 306, an objective lens 308, that work together to manage, guide , and direct the two laser beams onto the sample, [0068]) to thereby create a plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns (discloses that two beams interfere at the sample to form a lateral periodic interference pattern, [0078]);
sequentially projecting the plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns onto the moving sample (teaches sequential projection of multiple phase-shifted SW patterns onto the same sample, [0079]);
generating the image based on the output signals detected by the at least one detector, the known shape of the projected, spatially oscillating, interference patterns (teaches three separate interference patterns are sequentially projected, each pattern causes the sample to emit a distinct modulated fluorescence signal, which is captured by a CCD camera, theses multiple signals are combined computationally to produce the final high-resolution image, [0079]).
However, Saggau fails to teach creating a continuous motion of the sample along a predetermined trajectory; simultaneously projecting the plurality of spatially oscillating patterns at different positions along the trajectory, and reading out a signal from each pattern, as the sample traverses the pattern; detecting, by at least one detector, a plurality of output signals generated from the plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns projected onto the moving sample; and the known trajectory of the sample.
Trusiak teaches creating a continuous motion of the sample along a predetermined trajectory(figure 4a shows the microbeads are flowing in a water-filled microchamber);
simultaneously projecting the plurality of spatially oscillating patterns at different positions along the trajectory(discloses the π-hologram generation (from two-channel holograms), project multiple holographic patterns on the microbeads, figure 4c), and reading out a signal from each pattern, as the sample traverses the pattern(discloses the phase profile of the flowing microbeads is retrieved using holograms, the phase data corresponding to each microbead (which is moving along a trajectory) is captured, section 3.3, figure 4a);
detecting, by at least one detector, a plurality of output signals generated from the plurality of spatially oscillating interference patterns projected onto the moving sample(discloses retrieve phase profiles from flowing microbeads, detecting the phase signal from the sample as it move through the system, section 3.3, figure 4a);
and the known trajectory of the sample(figure 4c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the continuous motion of the sample along a predetermined trajectory and the handling of dynamic samples of Trusiak to Saggau to enhance real-time, high-speed data acquisition(section 3.2). This integration enables faster and more precise image generation, improving overall system performance and efficiency(section 3.3).
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 CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/C.X./ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights