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
The amendment filed on 08/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding at least independent claim 1, the applicant argues the rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 is improper over Boege US 2022/0308354 in view of Wilkins US 20210255414. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that “Wilkins’ system is not “adapted for use with an imaging system”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Wilkins used as an secondary reference does not require to teach every claim limitations includes the intended use claim limitations in claim 1.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Wilkins fails to disclose “a controller configured to activate the electronically controllable actuator on receipt of an input signal”.
Wilkins discloses an illumination system, in figs.1-3B, a controller (120, para.27-33) configured to activate the electronically controllable actuator (114, para.10 and 15) on receipt of an input signal (para.27-33) for the purpose of having a homogenizing function (para.12) to adjust the size of the light beam (para.14 and abstract) by controlling the electronically controllable actuator (para.27).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a controller configured to activate the electronically controllable actuator on receipt of an input signal as taught by Wilkins in the illumination system of Douglass for the purpose of having a homogenizing function to adjust the size of the light beam by controlling the electronically controllable actuator.
Therefore, The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para.0013 has i)]] and ii)]];
para.0034 has a(n electronic)]] and other incomplete phase of [[xxx]];
para.0042 has i)]] and ii)]] and other incomplete phase of [[xxx]]; and
para.0043 has an incomplete phase of [[xxx]].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, has [[(9) need correction to [[(9)]].
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglass “Super-resolution imaging of multiple cells by optimized flat-field epi-illumination” (provided in the IDS filed on 04/03/2024) in view of Wilkins US 20210255414.
PNG
media_image1.png
428
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
364
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
276
814
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Douglass discloses an illumination system (see figs.2 and supplementary figs.6, 7, 12 and 13) for adaptively illuminating an object situated in an object plane (S), with an illumination beam path, the illumination system being adapted for use with an imaging system,
the illumination system comprising:
a light source (a laser) as a starting point of the illumination beam path;
a collector optical unit (F1) for collecting light beams emerging from the light source; and
a condensing optical unit (two MLAs) for illuminating the object plane, the condensing optical unit comprises two microlens arrays (see figs.2 and supplementary figs.6 and 12), wherein at least one of
a) an axial distance between the two microlens arrays, is configured to be adjustable along an optical axis (see supplementary figures 6 and 13 disclose two microlens arrays (MLAs) can be adjusted along the axial direction to change the size of the illuminated area), or
b) at least one of the two microlens arrays is optically tunable (The Examiner notes: the claim limitation “the illumination system being adapted for use with an imaging system” in claim 1 is considered as intended use limitation, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus in intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Part Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d1647 (1987). Douglass discloses all the claimed structural limitations of the illumination system in claim 1; and claim 1 only requires that the illumination system is able to be used with an imaging system, and it is not limited to the recited details of the imaging system).
Douglass does not explicitly disclose a setting means including an electronically controllable actuator by which at least one of a) the axial distance between the two microlens arrays, is configured to be adjustable along the optical axis, or
b) at least one of the two microlens arrays is optically tunable; and a controller configured to activate the electronically controllable actuator on receipt of an input signal.
Wilkins discloses an illumination system, in figs.1-3B, a setting means (114) including an electronically controllable actuator (para.10, 14 and 15) by which the axial distance (see figs.2A-2C) between the two microlens arrays (112A and 112B), is configured to be adjustable along the optical axis (see figs.2A-2C); and a controller (120, para.27-33) configured to activate the electronically controllable actuator on receipt of an input signal (para.27-33) for the purpose of having a homogenizing function (para.12) to adjust the size of the light beam (para.14 and abstract) by controlling the electronically controllable actuator (para.27).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a setting means including an electronically controllable actuator by which the axial distance between the two microlens arrays, is configured to be adjustable along the optical axis, and a controller configured to activate the electronically controllable actuator on receipt of an input signal as taught by Wilkins in the illumination system of Douglass in order to have a setting means including an electronically controllable actuator by which at least one of a) the axial distance between the two microlens arrays, is configured to be adjustable along the optical axis, or b) at least one of the two microlens arrays is optically tunable; and a controller configured to activate the electronically controllable actuator on receipt of an input signal because they achieve the same purpose for the purpose of having a homogenizing function to adjust the size of the light beam by controlling the electronically controllable actuator.
Regarding claim 2, Douglass discloses an optical focal length of the condensing optical unit is tunable by at least one of a) adjusting the axial distance between the two microlens arrays, or b) by tuning at least one of the two microlens arrays (see supplementary figs.6 and 13).
Regarding claim 3, Douglass discloses a size of an illumination field in the object plane, which illumination field is supplied with illumination light by the condensing optical unit, is adaptable by at least one of a) adjusting the axial distance between the two microlens arrays, or b) by tuning at least one of the two microlens arrays (see supplementary figs.6 and 13).
Regarding claim 4, Douglass discloses the two microlens arrays are configured to shape an incident beam of the illumination beam path into an emerging beam which results in a rectangular format, and the light source supplies a non-rectangular intensity distribution (see figs.2 and supplementary figs.6, 7, 12 and 13).
Regarding claim 5, Douglass discloses the two microlens arrays cause an optical homogenization of an intensity distribution within the rectangular illumination field, in comparison with an intensity distribution of the light source of the illumination system (see figs.2 and supplementary figures 6, 12 and 13).
Regarding claim 6, Douglass discloses both of the microlens arrays each have microlenses on both sides (see figs.2 and supplementary figures 6 and 12).
Regarding claim 7, Douglass discloses at least one of: a) the two microlens arrays each have microlenses having at least one of a rectangular basic shape or optical aperture (see Storm Imaging of page 6), b) the microlenses of the two microlens arrays are arranged in a respective periodic pattern such that a flat-top intensity profile with a waviness of less than 15% is attained in the illumination field, c) at least one of the two microlens arrays includes microlenses with an aspherical contour (see figs.2 and 3), d) at least one of the two microlens arrays has cylindrical lenses, or e) at least one of the two microlens arrays has cylindrical lenses on both sides, wherein an orientation of these cylindrical lenses is rotated by 90° between a front side and a rear side.
Regarding claim 9, Douglass discloses in at least two different adjustments of the condensing optical unit a quantity of light of the illumination beam path which is provided by the light source and which leaves the collector optical unit at least one of a) completely passes through the two microlens arrays, or b) is completely usable for illuminating the illumination field (see figs.2 and supplementary figure 6).
Regarding claim 10, Douglass discloses an entire light beam emitted by the collector optical unit, in all settable relative positions of the two microlens arrays, exits as a shaped beam from a back one of the two microlens arrays (see figs.2 and supplementary figure 6).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglass “Super-resolution imaging of multiple cells by optimized flat-field epi-illumination” (provided in the IDS filed on 04/03/2024) in view of Wilkins US 20210255414 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boege US 2022/0308354.
Regarding claim 11, Douglass in view of Wilkins does not explicitly disclose the light source is formed by an end face of a light guide, and the end face emits light with a maximum emission angle of less than 40°.
Boege discloses an illumination system, in at least figs1,4,6 and 7, the light source (a light source of 106/402, para.112) is formed by an end face of a light guide (para.112), and the end face emits light with a maximum emission angle of less than 40° (less than 20°, see at least fig.4) for the purpose of forming a fiber beam source (para.112).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light source is formed by an end face of a light guide, and the end face emits light with a maximum emission angle of less than 40°as taught by Boege in the illumination system of Douglass in view of Wilkins for the purpose of forming a fiber beam source.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boege US 2022/0308354 in view of Wilkins US 20210255414.
Regarding claim 1, Boege discloses an illumination system (100) for adaptively illuminating an object (114/414) situated in an object plane (an object plane with 116), with an illumination beam path (see at least figs.1 and 4), the illumination system being adapted for use with an imaging system (1012),
the illumination system, in at least figs.1, 4, 6 and 7 comprising:
a light source (a light source of 106/402, para.112) as a starting point of the illumination beam path (see at least figs.1 and 4);
a collector optical unit (102/406) for collecting light beams emerging from the light source (see at least figs.1 and 4); and
a condensing optical unit (110/408) for illuminating the object plane, the condensing optical unit comprises two microlens arrays (456 and 458, para.114),
Boege does not explicitly disclose a setting means including an electronically controllable actuator by which at least one of a) an axial distance between the two microlens arrays, is configured to be adjustable along an optical axis, or
b) at least one of the two microlens arrays is optically tunable; and a controller configured to activate the electronically controllable actuator on receipt of an input signal.
Wilkins discloses an illumination system, in figs.1-3B, a setting means (114) including an electronically controllable actuator (para.10, 14 and 15) by which an axial distance (see figs.2A-2C) between the two microlens arrays (112A and 112B), is configured to be adjustable along an optical axis (see figs.2A-2C); and a controller (120, para.27-33) configured to activate the electronically controllable actuator on receipt of an input signal (para.27-33) for the purpose of having a homogenizing function (para.12) to adjust the size of the light beam (para.14 and abstract) by controlling the electronically controllable actuator (para.27).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a setting means including an electronically controllable actuator by which an axial distance between the two microlens arrays, is configured to be adjustable along an optical axis, and a controller configured to activate the electronically controllable actuator on receipt of an input signal as taught by Wilkins in the illumination system of Boege in order to have a setting means including an electronically controllable actuator by which at least one of a) an axial distance between the two microlens arrays, is configured to be adjustable along an optical axis, or b) at least one of the two microlens arrays is optically tunable; and a controller configured to activate the electronically controllable actuator on receipt of an input signal the same purpose for the purpose of having a homogenizing function to adjust the size of the light beam by controlling the electronically controllable actuator.
Regarding claim 2, Wilkins discloses an optical focal length of the condensing optical unit is tunable by at least one of a) adjusting the axial distance between the two microlens arrays, or b) by tuning at least one of the two microlens arrays (see figs.2A-2C) for the purpose of having a homogenizing function (para.12) to adjust the size of the light beam (para.14 and abstract). The reason for combining is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Boege in view of Wilkins discloses a size of an illumination field (116) in the object plane, which illumination field is supplied with illumination light by the condensing optical unit, is adaptable by at least one of a) adjusting the axial distance between the two microlens arrays, or b) by tuning at least one of the two microlens arrays for the purpose of having a homogenizing function (para.12) to adjust the size of the light beam (para.14 and abstract). The reason for combining is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Boege discloses the two microlens arrays are configured to shape an incident beam (108) of the illumination beam path into an emerging beam (112) which results in a rectangular format (112, para.113 and figs.4 and 7), and the light source (2) supplies a non-rectangular intensity distribution (104)(see fig.4).
Regarding claim 5, Boege discloses the two microlens arrays cause an optical homogenization of an intensity distribution (112, para.113 and figs.4 and 7) within the rectangular illumination field (116), in comparison with an intensity distribution of the light source of the illumination system (see figs.1 and 4).
Regarding claim 6, Boege does not explicitly disclose both of the microlens arrays each have microlenses on both sides.
Wilkins discloses both of the microlens arrays (112) each have microlenses on both sides (see fig.3B) for the purpose of forming fly’s eye microlens array (para.13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have both of the microlens arrays each have microlenses on both sides as taught by Wilkins in the illumination system of Boege for the purpose of forming fly’s eye microlens array.
Regarding claim 7, Boege discloses at least one of: a) the two microlens arrays each have microlenses having at least one of a rectangular basic shape or optical aperture, b) the microlenses of the two microlens arrays are arranged in a respective periodic pattern such that a flat-top intensity profile with a waviness of less than 15% is attained in the illumination field, c) at least one of the two microlens arrays includes microlenses with an aspherical contour, d) at least one of the two microlens arrays has cylindrical lenses (para.116), or e) at least one of the two microlens arrays has cylindrical lenses on both sides, wherein an orientation of these cylindrical lenses is rotated by 90° between a front side and a rear side.
Regarding claim 9, Boege in view of Wilkins discloses in at least two different adjustments of the condensing optical unit a quantity of light of the illumination beam path which is provided by the light source and which leaves the collector optical unit at least one of a) completely passes through the two microlens arrays, or b) is completely usable for illuminating the illumination field (see at least figs.4) for the purpose of having a homogenizing function (para.12) to adjust the size of the light beam (para.14 and abstract). The reason for combining is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Boege in view of Wilkins discloses an entire light beam emitted by the collector optical unit, in all settable relative positions of the two microlens arrays, exits as a shaped beam from a back one of the two microlens arrays (see at least fig.4).
Regarding claim 11, Boege discloses the light source is formed by an end face of a light guide (para.112), and the end face emits light with a maximum emission angle of less than 40° (less than 20°, see at least fig.4).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tillkorn US 20210165234 (at least fig.1) can be a secondary reference discloses a setting means (a motor, para.73) including an electronically controllable actuator (para.73) by which the axial distance (see fig.1) between the two microlens arrays (MLA1 and MLA2, or MLA3 and MLA4), is configured to be adjustable along the optical axis (fig.1); and a controller (10) configured to activate the electronically controllable actuator on receipt of an input signal (see fig.1 and para.73) for the purpose of setting the effective focal length of the entirety of the microlens arrays (abstract).
The Examiner notes for the future correction:
(Claim 12, has [[(18) need correction to [[(18)]] and has [[(4) need correction to [[(4)]]; the first line “an object plane” should be “the object plane”, last line (Withdrawn-currently amended) should be delete.
Claim 13, line 1, the method of claim 12 should be “the method as claimed in claim 12”;
Claim 14, line 1, “aw” should be “as”; and
Claims 12-20 with an image visualization system or a visualization system which is the same as an imaging system in claim 1 should be corrected to be consistent).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights