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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/02/2025 and 04/04/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on EP21202362.6 dated 10/13/2021.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
(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 1-6, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (JP2011197609A).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches in Fig. 13: a light modulation device for a microscope (“a light source device 40”; [0070], “the pulse laser beams L1 ″, L2 ′, L3, and L4 are collected in four planes that are introduced into the microscope body 3”; [0065]) comprising a first active area (“the liquid crystal device 12”; [0035]) of a wavefront modulator (“the wavefront conversion unit 6”; [0035]) and a second active area (“liquid crystal device 32”; [0057]) of a wavefront modulator (“conversion unit 22”; [0057]), wherein the first active area (12) and the second active area (32) are configured to modulate a wavefront of a light beam dependent on a polarization of the light beam (“the wavefront converter may include a liquid crystal device that converts a wavefront of pulsed laser light having a polarization direction parallel to the alignment direction of liquid crystal molecules”; [0020], see also [0031]), wherein a light path, along which the light beam propagates, intersects the first active area and the second active area (see the beam path of L1 in Fig. 13),
wherein the light modulation device (40, Fig. 13) comprises a first polarization switching element (“polarization switching element 41”; [0070]) configured to rotate the polarization of the light beam between a first polarization direction and a second polarization direction upon receiving a switching signal (“polarization switching element 41 switches the polarization direction for each of the one or more pulse laser beams L1 in synchronization with the output timing of the pulse laser beam L1 from the laser light source 4”; [0070]) to selectively modulate the wavefront of the light beam by the first active area and/or the second active area (“the wavefront is selectively given by the liquid crystal device 12 in accordance with the polarization direction switched at high speed by the polarization switching element 41, and the pulse laser beam L1 ′. , L2 can be injected.”; [0071]).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 1. Suzuki further teaches in Fig. 13: wherein the light beam is linearly polarized (“The laser light source 4 oscillates linearly polarized pulsed laser light L1 at a repetition frequency R”; [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 1. Suzuki further teaches in Fig. 13: the first active area (12) is configured to modulate the wavefront of the light beam if the light beam is polarized in the first polarization direction (“the liquid crystal device 12 controls the voltage to the liquid crystal molecules directly for each pixel to change the phase of the incident light, thereby freely adjusting the phase with respect to the incident light having the polarization direction that matches the alignment direction of the liquid crystal molecules. It can be modulated”; [0034]) and the second active area (32) is configured to modulate the wavefront of the light beam if the light beam is polarized in the second polarization direction (“the liquid crystal device 32 of the wavefront conversion unit 22 provided in the second unit 24 also changes the presence or absence of wavefront conversion according to the polarization direction of the incident pulse laser beams L1 ′, L2, L3, and L4.”; [0058]).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 1. Suzuki further teaches in Fig. 13: the light modulation device (40, Fig. 13) comprises a polarization modifying element (“polarization switching element 43”; [0072]) configured to rotate the polarization of the light beam (see [0072]) wherein the polarization modifying element (43) is arranged in the light path between the first active area (12) and the second active area (32) (see Fig. 13 in which 43 is arranged between 12 and 32).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 4. Suzuki further teaches in Fig. 13: the polarization modifying element (43) is configured to rotate the polarization of the light beam in a wavelength dependent manner (“depending on the combination of the operation states of the polarization switching elements 41 and 43, as shown in FIG. 14, the four types of pulses are provided with a time interval at the repetition period R of the pulsed laser light L1 output from the laser light source 4. Laser beams L1 ″, L2 ′, L3, and L4 can be generated”; [0072], “The laser light source 4 oscillates linearly polarized pulsed laser light L1 at a repetition frequency R”; [0027], {light source 4 outputs at L1 at a predetermined wavelength, therefore the polarization modifying element rotates the polarization in a wavelength dependent manner}).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 4. Suzuki further teaches in Fig. 13: both the first active area (12) and the second active area (32) are configured to modulate the wavefront of the light beam if the light beam is polarized in the first polarization direction (“when the polarization direction of incident light matches the alignment direction of liquid crystal molecules, the phase distribution can be given to the incident light most strongly. Further, when the polarization direction of the incident light and the alignment direction of the liquid crystal molecules are orthogonal, the incident light is not modulated”; [0033], {para [0033] explains that when the light beam matches the alignment of the active areas, the incident light is modulated}) or both the first active area and the second active area are configured to modulate the wavefront of the light beam if the light beam is polarized in the second polarization direction.
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 1. Suzuki further teaches in Fig. 13: a microscope (“a scanning microscope 2”; [0026]) comprising a light modulation device (“wavefront modulation unit 6”; [0038], “A scanning microscope is provided that includes an objective lens that illuminates and collects light from the observation target, and a detector that detects the light from the observation target”; [0021]).
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 1. Suzuki further teaches in Fig. 13: a method for modulating a light beam for microscopy using the light modulation device according to claim 1 (“a light source device 40”; [0070], “the pulse laser beams L1 ″, L2 ′, L3, and L4 are collected in four planes that are introduced into the microscope body 3”; [0065]), wherein
a. a light beam is provided (see the beam path of L1 in Fig. 13)
b. the light beam (L1) is directed along a light path intersecting a first active area (12) of a wavefront modulator (6) and a second active area (32) of a wavefront modulator (22), wherein the first active area (12) and the second active area (32) are configured to modulate a wavefront of the light beam dependent on a polarization of the light beam (“the wavefront converter may include a liquid crystal device that converts a wavefront of pulsed laser light having a polarization direction parallel to the alignment direction of liquid crystal molecules”; [0020], see also [0031]),
wherein the polarization of the light beam is rotated between a first polarization direction and a second polarization direction upon receiving a switching signal to selectively modulate the wavefront of the light beam by the first active area and/or the second active area (“the liquid crystal device 12 controls the voltage to the liquid crystal molecules directly for each pixel to change the phase of the incident light, thereby freely adjusting the phase with respect to the incident light having the polarization direction that matches the alignment direction of the liquid crystal molecules. It can be modulated”; [0034], “the liquid crystal device 32 of the wavefront conversion unit 22 provided in the second unit 24 also changes the presence or absence of wavefront conversion according to the polarization direction of the incident pulse laser beams L1 ′, L2, L3, and L4.”; [0058]).
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 7 and 10-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP2011197609A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reuss (US 20170123197 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 6. Suzuki fails to teach: the first active area and the second active area are jointly formed by a single wavefront modulator.
However, in related invention in the field of wavefront modulation for microscopes, Reuss teaches in Fig. 1: the first active area (“a first partial area 11”; [0034]) and the second active area (“second partial area 12”; [0034]) are jointly formed by a single wavefront modulator (“spatial light modulator 2”; [0035], “partial areas 11 and 12 of a single spatial light modulator 2”; [0035]).
Furthermore, Reuss teaches this configuration such that “With such a short distance, it is advantageous that both optical elements which separately modulate the wave fronts of one component of the light beam 8 are partial areas 11 and 12 of a single spatial light modulator 2 and no separate optical elements or even separate spatial light modulators arranged side by side” (Reuss, [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Reuss to provide a device in which the first active area and the second active area are jointly formed by a single wavefront modulator, for the purpose of maintaining compactness of the device (Reuss, [0035]).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 1. Suzuki fails to explicitly teach: the first active area is configured to display a first modulation pattern and the second active area is configured to display a second modulation pattern.
However, in related invention in the field of wavefront modulation for microscopes, Reuss teaches in Fig. 1: the first active area (11) is configured to display a first modulation pattern and the second active area (12) is configured to display a second modulation pattern (“It has, however, been found that the lateral offset between the two components or with regard to the optical axis of the objective can be compensated for by means of modifying the modulation patterns which are impressed in the wave fronts of the two components by the partial areas 11 and 12 of the spatial light modulator 2”; [0037]).
Furthermore, Reuss teaches this configuration such that “If, for example, a modulation pattern for a donut-shaped intensity distribution normally corresponds to a so-called phase clock rotating about the optical axis, the center of the phase clock may be shifted and/or the pitch of the phase shift over the circumference of the center may be modified to achieve a symmetric donut-shaped intensity distribution around the focus point of the objective” (Reuss, [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Reuss to provide a device in which the first active area is configured to display a first modulation pattern and the second active area is configured to display a second modulation pattern, for the purpose of achieving symmetric intensity around the focus point of the objective (Reuss, [0037]).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 10. Suzuki fails to explicitly teach: the light modulation device comprises a control device configured to control the first active area and the second active area, such that the first active area displays the first modulation pattern and the second active area displays the second modulation pattern.
However, in related invention in the field of wavefront modulation for microscopes, Reuss teaches in Fig. 1: the light modulation device (“device 1”; [0038]) comprises a control device (“spatial light modulator 2”; [0037]) configured to control the first active area (11) and the second active area (12), such that the first active area displays the first modulation pattern and the second active area displays the second modulation pattern (“the modulation patterns which are impressed in the wave fronts of the two components by the partial areas 11 and 12 of the spatial light modulator 2”; [0037]).
Furthermore, Reuss teaches this configuration such that “The modulation pattern is modified accordingly to nevertheless provide the desired maxima of the intensity distribution of the fluorescence inhibiting light around the focus of a following objective, for example. The modification of the at least one modulation pattern is particularly easy, if a spatial light modulator (SLM) is used as the polarization-selective optical element. In this case, the modification only requires a modified control of the SLM” (Reuss, [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Reuss to provide a device in which the light modulation device comprises a control device configured to control the first active area and the second active area, such that the first active area displays the first modulation pattern and the second active area displays the second modulation pattern, for the purpose of providing the desired maxima of the intensity distribution of the light around the focus of an objective (Reuss, [0021]).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 10. Suzuki fails to explicitly teach: the first modulation pattern and the second modulation pattern are adapted to adjust an axial position of a focus of the light beam.
However, in related invention in the field of wavefront modulation for microscopes, Reuss teaches in Fig. 1: the first modulation pattern (11) and the second modulation pattern (12) are adapted to adjust an axial position of a focus of the light beam (“in one or both of the modulation patterns, it is considered that at least one of the two components of the light beam is laterally offset with regard to the optical axis. The modulation pattern is modified accordingly to nevertheless provide the desired maxima of the intensity distribution of the fluorescence inhibiting light around the focus of a following objective”; [0022]).
Furthermore, Reuss teaches this configuration such that “this offset between the two components of the light beam may be compensated for by modifying at least one of the modulation patterns impressed in the wave fronts of the modulated component by the first or second optical element with regard to the optical axis. This means that, in one or both of the modulation patterns, it is considered that at least one of the two components of the light beam is laterally offset with regard to the optical axis” (Reuss, [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Reuss to provide a device in which the first modulation pattern and the second modulation pattern are adapted to adjust an axial position of a focus of the light beam, for the purpose of adjusting an axial position of the beam (Reuss, [0022]).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 10. Suzuki fails to explicitly teach: the first modulation pattern and the second modulation pattern are adapted such that the wavefront of the light beam is modulated in an identical fashion regardless of the polarization of the light beam.
However, in related invention in the field of wavefront modulation for microscopes, Reuss teaches in Fig. 1: the first modulation pattern (11) and the second modulation pattern (12) are adapted such that the wavefront of the light beam is modulated in an identical fashion regardless of the polarization of the light beam (“The modification of the at least one modulation pattern is particularly easy, if a spatial light modulator (SLM) is used as the polarization-selective optical element. In this case, the modification only requires a modified control of the SLM”; [0022], {“polarization-selective” suggests that the SLM can adapt or modify the modulation patterns in a way that is consistent to each polarization state}).
Furthermore, Reuss teaches this configuration such that “Further, this offset between the two components of the light beam may be compensated for by modifying at least one of the modulation patterns impressed in the wave fronts of the modulated component by the first or second optical element with regard to the optical axis. This means that, in one or both of the modulation patterns, it is considered that at least one of the two components of the light beam is laterally offset with regard to the optical axis” (Reuss, [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Reuss to provide a device in which the first modulation pattern and the second modulation pattern are adapted such that the wavefront of the light beam is modulated in an identical fashion regardless of the polarization of the light beam, for the purpose of adjusting an axial position of the beam by use of a Spatial Light Modulator (Reuss, [0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 10. Suzuki fails to explicitly teach: the first modulation pattern is adapted to generate a light distribution comprising a local intensity maximum at a focus of the light beam, and the second modulation pattern is adapted to generate a light distribution comprising a local intensity minimum at the focus.
However, in related invention in the field of wavefront modulation for microscopes, Reuss teaches in Fig. 1: the first modulation pattern is adapted to generate a light distribution comprising a local intensity maximum at a focus of the light beam, and the second modulation pattern is adapted to generate a light distribution comprising a local intensity minimum at the focus (“By means of the device 1, the wave fronts of the two components of the fluorescence inhibiting light 27 are modulated in such a way that the maxima of the light intensity distributions of the fluorescence inhibiting light 27 resulting in the focus of a following objective 29 delimit a zero point or minimum of the light intensity distribution of the fluorescence inhibiting light 27”; [0042]).
Furthermore, Reuss teaches this configuration such that “The device then prepares or forms the fluorescence inhibiting light, in such a way that the intensity distribution of the fluorescence inhibiting light, around the focus of the objective at which an intensity distribution of the excitation light has a maximum, has a zero point or minimum surrounded by maxima which delimit the zero point or minimum of the intensity distribution of the fluorescence inhibiting light in all three spatial directions. This is a precondition for increasing the spatial resolution of the laser scanning microscope by means of the fluorescence inhibiting light in all three spatial directions” (Reuss, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Reuss to provide a device in which the first modulation pattern is adapted to generate a light distribution comprising a local intensity maximum at a focus of the light beam, and the second modulation pattern is adapted to generate a light distribution comprising a local intensity minimum at the focus, for the purpose of increasing the spatial resolution of the laser scanning microscope by means of the fluorescence inhibiting light in all three spatial directions (Reuss, [0003]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (JP2011197609A), as in claim 18, and further in view of Heine (US 20210165199 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 18. Suzuki fails to explicitly teach: the microscope is a MINFLUX microscope.
However, in a related invention in the field of light modulation for a microscope, Heine teaches: the microscope is a MINFLUX microscope (“It is a common feature of the above-described prior art scanning laser fluorescence microscopes, which are realized as simple confocal microscopes, STED microscopes or MINFLUX microscopes, that they have a beam path section in which the detection beam path and the illumination beam path coincide but are oriented in opposite directions”; [0018]).
Furthermore, Heine teaches this configuration such that “In MINFLUX microscopes, an illumination beam path which is configured for illuminating the sample with a focus having a central intensity minimum coincides with a detection beam path in a common beam path section” (Heine, [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Heine to provide a device in which the microscope is a MINFLUX microscope, for the purpose high resolution imaging (Reuss, [0018]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP2011197609A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Engelhardt (US 20200310094 A1) and Zou (US 20210050703 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 1. Suzuki further teaches in Fig. 13: the first polarization switching element (41) and/or the second polarization switching element comprises a switching rate of at least 1 kHz (“polarization switching element 41 such as a Pockels cell is employed”; [0070].
Suzuki discloses the use of a Pockels cell to employ the switching function of element 41. However, Suzuki fails to disclose the specific numerical switching rate of said switching element.
In a related invention in the field of scanning microscopes Engelhardt establishes that Pockels cells are well known in the art of microscopes: “each of the polarization rotating devices or of the polarization rotating elements, if the polarization rotating devices comprise two or more polarization rotating elements, may independently be selected from Kerr-cells and Pockels-cells. Kerr-cells and Pockels-cells are well known means for electro-optically rotating a linear polarization direction of an incoming light beam in another linear polarization direction as required by the polarization rotating devices of the digital electro-optical deflectors to be used in the present disclosure” (Engelhardt, [0037]).
Similarly, Engelhardt does not disclose a numerical value for the switching rate but provides motivation for use in a microscope system.
However, in a related invention in the field of ultrafast lasers with polarization control methods, Zou establishes a numerical value for the switching rate of a Pockels cell: “The driving voltage frequency of the Pockels cell is generally less than 200 KHz” (Zou, [0043]).
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the switching rate of the first polarization switching element to be at least 1 kHz, which overlaps the disclosed less than 200 kHz, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and In re Geisler 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) which found that a thickness of about 100 Angstroms directly teaches the use of a thickness within a claimed range of 50 to 100 Angstroms. See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Engelhardt and Zou to provide a device in which the first polarization switching element and/or the second polarization switching element comprises a switching rate of at least 1 kHz for the purpose of electro-optically rotating a linear polarization direction of an incoming light beam in another linear polarization direction as required by the polarization rotating devices (Engelhardt, [0037]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP2011197609A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Siebenmorgen (US 20210247600 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki teaches the modulation device according to claim 1. Suzuki fails to teach: the light modulation device comprises a second polarization switching element configured to rotate the polarization of the light beam between the second polarization direction and the first polarization direction after the wavefront of the light beam has been modulated by the first active area and the second active area.
However, in a related invention in the field of microscope polarization adjustment, Siebenmorgen teaches in Fig. 2: the light modulation device (“optics arrangement 100”; [0045]) comprises a second polarization switching element (“polarization beam splitter 10”; [0060], first polarization element being element 28) configured to rotate the polarization of the light beam between the second polarization direction and the first polarization direction after the wavefront (see Fig. 2) of the light beam has been modulated by the first active area (“first region 35A of the liquid crystal matrix 35”; [0067]) and the second active area (“a second region 35B of the liquid crystal matrix 35”; [0067]).
Furthermore, Siebenmorgen teaches this configuration such that “The variant described above can also be modified in such a manner that no half-wave plate is required. Here, the alignment of the liquid crystal matrix can be set at an angle of 45° relative to both the polarization direction of the reflection light and the polarization direction of the transmission light. Depending on an on- or off-state of the liquid crystal elements, a 90° polarization rotation or no polarization rotation at the liquid crystal matrix results therefrom” (Siebenmorgen, [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Siebenmorgen to provide a device in which the light modulation device comprises a second polarization switching element configured to rotate the polarization of the light beam between the second polarization direction and the first polarization direction after the wavefront of the light beam has been modulated by the first active area and the second active area, for the purpose of designing the optical device in order to acquire the desired polarization transform (Siebenmorgen, [0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 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 claim 15, the closest art, Suzuki, teaches the modulation device according to claim 10. Suzuki fails to teach: the first modulation pattern is adapted to generate a first light distribution, and the second modulation pattern is adapted to generate a second light distribution, wherein both the first light distribution and the second light distribution comprise a local minimum at a focus of the light beam, wherein the first light distribution is different from the second light distribution.
However, in related invention in the field of wavefront modulation for microscopes, Reuss teaches in Fig. 1: the first modulation pattern is adapted to generate a first light distribution, and the second modulation pattern is adapted to generate a second light distribution (“It has, however, been found that the lateral offset between the two components or with regard to the optical axis of the objective can be compensated for by means of modifying the modulation patterns which are impressed in the wave fronts of the two components by the partial areas 11 and 12 of the spatial light modulator 2”; [0037]).
Reuss fails to teach: wherein both the first light distribution and the second light distribution comprise a local minimum at a focus of the light beam, wherein the first light distribution is different from the second light distribution.
Therefore, based on the configuration of Suzuki it would be improper to modify Reuss to provide a device in which both the first light distribution and the second light distribution comprise a local minimum at a focus of the light beam, wherein the first light distribution is different from the second light distribution. Therefore, the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Claims 16-17 would be allowable for its dependence on claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DE 102023102378 A1: a light microscope and a method for imaging a sample or for locating or tracking emitters in a sample.
US 20170108684 A1: a scanner head for high-resolution scanning fluorescence microscopy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571) 272-3689. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
.