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 without traverse of Group I, Species (A), claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/06/2026.
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.
Claims 1-11 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 1, the claim limitation “b) at least one of the two microlens arrays is configured to be optically detunable” in claim 1, “the optically detonable” means the optics are fixed and cannot be adjusted. However, abstract and para.100 disclose “at least one of the microlens arrays is optically tunable”. Therefore, it is indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the above limitation as -- “b) at least one of the two microlens arrays is configured to be optically
Also, last line of claims 2 and 3 should be “b) by
dependent Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of its dependency.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phase “detunable” and “detuning” mentioned in the current application should be amended to “tunable” and “tuning” respectively (see 112(b) rejection above).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 objected to because of the following informalities:
All the numbers in claims 1-11 should be deleted (the Examiner notes: All the numbers in claims 12-20 should be deleted too);
Claim 8, the claim limitation “setting means” should be “a setting means”; and
Claim 11, line 2, the phase “the end face” should be “an end face”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Douglass “Super-resolution imaging of multiple cells by optimized flat-field epi-illumination” (provided in the IDS filed on 04/03/2024).
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), or
b) at least one of the two microlens arrays is configured to be 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).
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 8, Douglass discloses the illumination system comprises a setting means by which the axial distance between the two microlens arrays is adjustable (see page 23 of supplementary figure 6, it’s inherent to have a setting means for adjusting the axial distance between the two microlens arrays).
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 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) 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boege US 2022/0308354.
Regarding claim 11, Douglass 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 for the purpose of forming a fiber beam source.
Claim(s) 1-11 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 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 configured to be optically tunable.
Wilkins discloses an illumination system, in at least figs.2A-3B, an axial distance between the two microlens arrays (112A and 112B), is configured to be adjustable along an optical axis (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).
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 an axial distance between the two microlens arrays, is configured to be adjustable along an optical axis as taught by Wilkins in the illumination system of Boege in order to have 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 configured to be optically tunable because they achevie the same purpose for the purpose of having a homogenizing function to adjust the size of the light beam.
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 8, Wilkins discloses the illumination system comprises a setting means (114) by which the axial distance between the two microlens arrays is adjustable (see figs.2A-2C and para.14).
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).
Contact Information
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