DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 2 in the reply filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no serious search burden because there is no meaningful difference between the claims in the identified species. This is not found persuasive because the examiner respectfully disagrees since the species claim two different optical systems. A single lens with a retroreflector array is a different optical system than a single lens with a lens array which would require two different searches for each optical system.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/02/2025; 12/19/2024; 01/11/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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 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 limitations are: an inertial scanning unit for receiving an incident beam; in as claimed in claims 1 and 18; Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 17-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer (US Patent Publication Number 2004/0032650 A1) in view of Manders (US Patent Publication Number 2023/0296870 A1).
Lauer teaches, as claimed in claim 1, a scan multiplier system for optical scanning (Figs. 22), comprising an inertial scanning unit (603b) for receiving an incident beam (the beam coming in to 603b) and scanning the incident beam (FX) to generate a scanned beam (¶0176 “allowing the scanning of the entire object by means of a single galvanometric mirror” and ¶0182 “the galvanometric mirror 603b”, the beam is scanned by 603b) defining a scanned line rate1; and a scan multiplier unit (606) for receiving the scanned beam from the inertial scanning unit (603B), the scan multiplier unit including one or more optical elements (¶0175 “microscopic mirror array 606”) for redirecting the scanned beam back toward the inertial scanning unit (603b), the inertial scanning unit (603b) receiving the reflected beam from the optical element and generating a rescanned beam (FX2), the rescanned beam defining a rescanned line rate2 different from the scanned line rate, Lauer fails to teach the rescanned beam defining a rescanned line rate different from the scanned line rate. In a related art, Manders teaches a scan multiplier system for optical scanning defining a scanned line rate and the rescanned beam defining a rescanned line rate different from the scanned line rate (¶0071 “the sample at a first velocity and move the sample light spot over the imaging plane at a second velocity, such that the second velocity is different from, preferably higher than, more preferably approximately twice as high as, a baseline velocity”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scan multiplier system, as taught by Lauer, with the rescanned line rate different from the scanned line rate, as taught by Manders, for the purpose of providing a way to increase the resolution of the obtained image (¶0071).
Lauer teaches, as claimed in claim 2, wherein the incident beam (FX), the scanned beam the beam is scanned by 603b), and the rescanned beam (FX2) are optical light beams3 (¶0174 “The excitation beam FX is a noncoherent beam produced for example by a Xenon arc lamp equipped with a collector and an optical system allowing the generation of Kohler illumination”).
Lauer fails to teach, as claimed in claim 3, wherein the rescanned line scan rate of the rescanned beam is greater than the scanned line rate. In a related art, Manders teaches wherein the rescanned line scan rate of the rescanned beam is greater than the scanned line rate (¶0071 “the sample at a first velocity and move the sample light spot over the imaging plane at a second velocity, such that the second velocity is different from, preferably higher than, more preferably approximately twice as high as, a baseline velocity”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scan multiplier system, as taught by Lauer and Manders, with the scanned line scan rate of the rescanned beam being greater than the scanned line rate, as taught by Manders, for the purpose of providing a way to increase the resolution of the obtained image (¶0071).
Lauer teaches, as claimed in claim 8, wherein the optical element in the scan multiplier unit comprises a refractive element4 (¶0208 “to permit the use of the technique described in FIG. 23, in which the transparent part of the transparent plate 1600 is now replaced by a diaphragm … the microlens array 1509”).
Lauer teaches, as claimed in claim 17, a plurality of optical elements for separating the incident light beam from the rescanned light beam (Fig. 15)5.
Lauer teaches, as claimed in claim 18, a laser scanning microscope system (Fig. 22, ¶0002 “confocal scanning optical microscope”), comprising: a light source for generating an incident light beam (¶0165 “the illuminating beam FX is supplied, for example, by the incandescent arc 150 of a mercury vapor or Xenon lamp”), an inertial scanning unit (603b) for receiving an incident beam (beam coming in to 603b) and scanning the incident beam (Fx) to generate a scanned beam (¶0176 “allowing the scanning of the entire object by means of a single galvanometric mirror”; ¶0182 “the galvanometric mirror 603b”, the beam is scanned by 603b) defining a scanned line rate6; and a scan multiplier unit (606) for receiving the scanned beam from the inertial scanning unit (603B), the scan multiplier unit including an optical elements (¶0175 “microscopic mirror array 606 “) for redirecting the scanned beam back toward the inertial scanning unit (603b), the inertial scanning unit (603b) receiving the reflected beam from the optical element and generating a rescanned beam (Fx2), the rescanned beam defining a rescanned line rate7 different from the scanned line rate, Lauer fails to teach the rescanned beam defining a rescanned line rate different from the scanned line rate. In a related art, Manders teaches a scan multiplier system for optical scanning defining a scanned line rate and the rescanned beam defining a rescanned line rate different from the scanned line rate (¶0071 “the sample at a first velocity and move the sample light spot over the imaging plane at a second velocity, such that the second velocity is different from, preferably higher than, more preferably approximately twice as high as, a baseline velocity”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scan multiplier system, as taught by Lauer, with the rescanned line rate different from the scanned line rate, as taught by Manders, for the purpose of providing a way to increase the resolution of the obtained image (¶0071).
Lauer teaches, as claimed in claim 19, a plurality of optical elements for separating the incident light beam from the rescanned light beam8.
Lauer fails to teach, as claimed in claim 20, further comprising a scanner for scanning the rescanned beam along a slow axis. In a related art Manders teaches further comprising a scanner (14) for scanning the rescanned beam along a slow axis9 (¶103 “the velocity of an image of the sample light spot in primary image plane 16, is given by the multiplication of a first velocity” ¶0105 “the second velocity, i.e. the velocity with which the sample light spot moves over the imaging plane 44… he second velocity is twice as high as the baseline velocity”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scan multiplier system, as taught by Lauer and Manders, with the scanner, as taught by Manders, for the purpose of providing a way to increase the resolution of the obtained image (¶0071).
Lauer teaches, as claimed in claim 21, teaches in another embodiment further comprising an objective (1307) for focusing the rescanned light (FE) beam onto a focused spot that scans over a sample (1308 ¶0097 “the light beam FE retransmitted by fluorescence from this point passes through the objective 1307”).
Lauer teaches, as claimed in claim 22, further comprising a detector (1317) for detecting light from a sample (¶0097 “the beam to be detected FD is then focused by the lens 1316 at a point to be detected FDO located on a point of the image plane P2 in which is located the CCD sensor 1317 fixed to the camera 1318”).
Lauer teaches, as claimed in claim 25, wherein the microscope is a confocal microscope (¶0020 “the confocal microscope to detect only the light coming from the illuminated point”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer (US Patent Publication Number 2004/0032650 A1) in view of Manders (US Patent Publication Number 2023/0296870 A1) and in further view of Tanabe (EP Patent Publication Number 3104212 A2).
Lauer and Manders fails to teach, as claimed in claim 10, wherein the optical element in the scan multiplier unit comprises a plurality of refractive elements at a variable pitch. In a related art, Tanabe teaches a scan multiplier system (See Fig. 12a) for optical scanning wherein the optical element (8) in the scan multiplier unit (7-10) comprises a plurality of refractive elements at a variable pitch (¶0356 “the microlens array, the Y-directional lens pitch Py (second direction) perpendicular to the X-direction (first direction) in the XY plane (a lens arrangement plane of the microlens array) is varied in the X-direction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scan multiplier system, as taught by Lauer and Manders, with the plurality of refractive elements at a variable pitch, as taught by Tanabe, for the purpose of providing a way to reduce development of a moire at any desired position in the scanning range in the X-direction (¶0356).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer (US Patent Publication Number 2004/0032650 A1) in view of Manders (US Patent Publication Number 2023/0296870 A1) and in further view of Zou (US Patent Publication Number 2015/0130920 A1).
Lauer and Manders fails to teach, as claimed in claim 12, wherein the optical element comprises a one- dimensional array of refractive elements. In a related art, Zou teaches wherein the optical element comprises a one- dimensional array of refractive elements (¶0059 “linear microlens array 250”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scan multiplier system, as taught by Lauer and Manders, with the one- dimensional array of refractive elements, as taught by Zou, for the purpose of providing a way to avoid possible ambiguity associated with partial tissue within the FOV (¶0059).
Lauer and Manders fails to teach, as claimed in claim 14, wherein the optical element comprises a one- dimensional tilted array of refractive elements. In a related art, Zou teaches wherein the optical element comprises a one-dimensional tilted array of refractive elements (¶0059 “a linear microlens array 250 (tilted or non-tilted) is positioned in the FOV of the tilted focusing sensor 30”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scan multiplier system, as taught by Lauer and Manders, with the one- dimensional tilted array of refractive elements, as taught by Zou, for the purpose of providing a way to avoid possible ambiguity associated with partial tissue within the FOV (¶0059).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer (US Patent Publication Number 2004/0032650 A1) in view of Manders (US Patent Publication Number 2023/0296870 A1) and in further view of George (WO Patent Number 9940471 A1).
Lauer teaches, as claimed in claim 9, wherein the optical element in the scan multiplier unit comprises a plurality of refractive elements at a predetermined pitch. In a related art, George teaches wherein the optical element in the scan multiplier unit comprises a plurality of refractive elements at a predetermined pitch (Page 6, lines 31-32 “The pitch between adjacent elements (i.e. the center to center spacing) is often 200 microns or less”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scan multiplier system, as taught by Lauer and Manders, with the a two- dimensional array of refractive elements, as taught by George, for the purpose of providing a way so greater than 95% of incident light may be transmitted by such an array (Page 7, lines 5-6).
Lauer and Manders fails to teach, as claimed in claim 16, wherein the optical element comprises a two-dimensional array of refractive elements. In a related art, George teaches wherein the optical element comprises a two-dimensional array of refractive elements (Page 6, lines 28-31 “micro lens arrays that consist of many small lens elements in a close packed array now are commercially available. Existing arrays have as many as 256 x 256 elements”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scan multiplier system, as taught by Lauer and Manders, with the a two- dimensional array of refractive elements, as taught by George, for the purpose of providing a way so greater than 95% of incident light may be transmitted by such an array (Page 7, lines 5-6).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer (US Patent Publication Number 2004/0032650 A1) in view of Manders (US Patent Publication Number 2023/0296870 A1) and in further view of Hilman (US Patent Publication Number 2012/0140240 A1).
Lauer and Manders fails to teach, as claimed in claim 23, wherein the detector comprises a two-dimensional array of detector elements. In a related art, Hilman teaches wherein the detector comprises a two-dimensional array of detector elements (¶0025 “a light detector array (for example, a linear CCD or other 1D or 2D detection array)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scan multiplier system, as taught by Lauer and Manders, with the two-dimensional detector array, as taught by Hilman, for the purpose of providing a way of detecting distinct individual measurements of light at different locations along the first direction (¶0025).
Lauer and Manders fails to teach, as claimed in claim 24, wherein the detector comprises a one-dimensional array of detector elements. In a related art, Hilman teaches wherein the detector comprises a one-dimensional array of detector elements (¶0025 “a light detector array (for example, a linear CCD or other 1D or 2D detection array)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scan multiplier system, as taught by Lauer and Manders, with the one-dimensional detector array, as taught by Hilman, for the purpose of providing a way of detecting distinct individual measurements of light at different locations along the first direction (¶0025).
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer (US Patent Publication Number 2004/0032650 A1) in view of Manders (US Patent Publication Number 2023/0296870 A1) and in further view of Svoboda (US Patent Publication Number 2017/0123196 A1).
Lauer and Manders fails to teach, as claimed in claim 26, wherein the microscope is a two-photon microscope. In a related art, Svoboda teaches wherein the microscope is a two-photon microscope (¶0065 “such as such as the two-photon laser-scanning microscope with a 5 mm field-of-view (FOV) and 0.6 NA described herein”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scan multiplier system, as taught by Lauer and Manders, with the two-photon microscope, as taught by Svoboda, for the purpose of providing pupil shift that can cause significant optical aberrations (¶0065).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Silvermintz (US Patent Number 6,548,796 B1) teaches a laser scanning microscope system, comprising: a light source for generating an incident light, an inertial scanning unit for receiving an incident beam.
Olszak (US Patent Publication Number 2004/0004759 A1) teaches a laser scanning microscope system, comprising: a light source for generating an incident light, an inertial scanning unit for receiving an incident beam.
Boehme (US Patent Publication Number 2016/0131881 A1) teaches a laser scanning microscope system, comprising: a light source for generating an incident light, an inertial scanning unit for receiving an incident beam.
Weyh (US Patent Publication Number 2004/0174593 A1) teaches a laser scanning microscope system, comprising: a light source for generating an incident light, an inertial scanning unit for receiving an incident beam.
Gruhlke (US Patent Number 7,215,453 B2) teaches a laser scanning microscope system, comprising: a light source for generating an incident light, an inertial scanning unit for receiving an incident beam.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
22 July 2026
/RICKY L MACK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 The beam FX inherently has a scanned line rate.
2 The beam FX2 inherently has a scanned line rate.
3 Since the beam FX is a produced from a Xenon arc lamp, inherently the scanned and rescan beams are optical beams.
4 Fig. 15 shows the microlens array as a refractive element
5 The beam FX is kept separate from the rescanned beam FX2 by 605b and 606 see Fig. 15 and the beams being separated.
6 The beam FX inherently has a scanned line rate.
7 The beam FX2 inherently has a rescanned line rate.
8 The beam FX is kept separate from rescanned beam FX2 by 605b and 606 see Fig. 15 and the beams being separated.
9 The light that is scanned to image plane 16 would be considered the slow axis since this axis has the slower velocity.
Prosecution Insights