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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/21/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-15 are 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.
Claim 1 contains the limitations of “a beam-shaping optical unit for shaping the detection radiation” and “a beam-shaping optical unit for shaping the excitation radiation”. It is not understood if this is the same beam shaping optical unit that has the ability to shape both the excitation and detection radiation or if they are two separate optical units one for each. Examiner is taking the position for examination that they are two separate optical units.
Claim 2 and 3 contain the limitation of “the beam-shaping optical unit”. However they both depend on claim 1 which has the limitations of “a beam-shaping optical unit for shaping the detection radiation” and “a beam-shaping optical unit for shaping the excitation radiation”. As seen in the above 112 rejection of claim 1 it is not understood as to which optical unit is being claimed or if these are variations of the same optical unit.
Claim 4 is rejected as being indefinite for containing the limitations of “in A…” , “in B…”, “in B1…”, “in B2…” and “in C…”. It is not understood as to what these limitations are being directed to. These appear to be directed to steps involved in the method of analyzing the acquired images.
Claims 5-15 are rejected as depending on rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by Kleppe et. al. (US 2018/0196245 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Kleppe teaches (figs. 1-5) a microscope for determining properties of moving objects in a biological sample, comprising:
a sample space (2) for arranging a biological sample (para. 0042 and 0004);
an objective for capturing a detection radiation coming from a confocal volume created in the sample (13; para. 0043);
a detection beam path along which a captured detection radiation is steered to a detector in the form of a detector array having a plurality of detector elements (24; para. 0048),
where the detector is arranged in a plane conjugate to a back-side image plane of the objective, and measurement values from the detector elements can each be read and analyzed on an individual basis (19; para. 0054);
and a light source (5) for providing an excitation radiation and there being (para. 0042), in an illumination beam path, a beam-shaping optical unit (10, 11, 12) for shaping the excitation radiation to form a confocal volume in the sample space and/or, in the detection beam path, a beam-shaping optical unit (16) for shaping the detection radiation (para. 0043).
Regarding claim 2 Kleppe teaches (figs. 1-5) a microscope for determining properties of moving objects, where the beam-shaping optical unit comprises a slit stop, a beam expander, or a pinhole (lenses 11,12 (beam expander); para. 0043).
Regarding claim 8 Kleppe teaches (figs. 1-5) a microscope for determining properties of moving objects, where a plurality of detector elements are combined to form a respective one of the partners of an extended pair (para. 0058).
Regarding claim 9 Kleppe teaches (figs. 1-5) a microscope for determining properties of moving objects, where a group of a plurality of pairs or plurality of extended pairs of detector elements is defined, where the imaginary connecting lines of the center points of the pairs or extended pairs run parallel to one another (para. 0058).
Regarding claim 10 Kleppe teaches (figs. 1-5) a microscope for determining properties of moving objects, where a mean value of the cross correlations in a the first direction and/or a second direction, created from the measurement values of the pairs or extended pairs, is formed (para. 0081).
Regarding claim 11 Kleppe teaches (figs. 1-5) a microscope for determining properties of moving objects, characterized by a determination of a plurality of groups of detector elements, where the respective imaginary connecting lines between the groups are aligned differently from one another (para. 0058).
Regarding claim 12 Kleppe teaches (figs. 1-5) a microscope for determining properties of moving objects, where cross correlations of measurement values of the pairs or extended pairs of at least two different groups are formed (para. 0058).
Regarding claim 14 Kleppe teaches (figs. 1-5) a microscope for determining properties of moving objects, where the partners of a pair are spatially separated in each case by at least one detector element not belonging to the relevant pair (para. 0058).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleppe et. al. (US 2018/0196245 A1) in view of Wu et. al. (US 2017/0343784 A1).
Regarding claim 3 Kleppe teaches (figs. 1-5) a microscope for determining properties of moving objects, except where the beam-shaping optical unit comprises a spatial light modulator.
Wu teaches (fig. 1) where the beam-shaping optical unit comprises a spatial light modulator (150; para. 0064).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the microscopy system as taught be Kleppe with the use of an SLM as taught by Wu for the benefit of reducing optical aberrations caused by upstream optical elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 as noted below would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-7, 13, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 4-7: Claim 4 contains he limitations directed to the steps of calculating the movement of a biological object in a microscope system by way of correlation of pairs of detector elements and there temporal intensity change as noted in claim 4. Claims 5-7 depend on claim 4.
Regarding claims 13 and 15: Claim 13 is directed to the calculation of the motion of an object in the microscope image analysis through the utilization of multiple cross correlations of detector element pairs. Claim 15 depends on claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following are directed to similar biologic microscopic systems including Wachsuth (US 7,158,295 B2), Rushbrooke (US 7,170,597 B1), Enderlein (US 2010/0303386 A1), Anhurt et. al. (US 2017/0227748 A1), Novikau et. al. (US 10,234,667 B2), and Singer et. al. (US 10,371,932 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 a.m. -6 p.m..
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.
/Robert E. Tallman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872