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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 21-25 in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged.
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
23. The mirror of claim [20] 21, wherein the mirror perpendicular to optical axis improves lateral and axial imaging resolution in microscopy.
24. The mirror of claim [20] 21, wherein the light modulation layer has a thickness, and the thickness of the light modulation layer controls accuracy of the ridge height.
25. The mirror of claim [20] 21, wherein the ridge height is 5-30 um.
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with Peter S. Weissman (Reg. No. 40220) on 06/08/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2026 and 04/22/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on PRO 63/257,849 dated 10/20/2021.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.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 21-25 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 23 recites the limitation "the mirror perpendicular to optical axis improves lateral and axial imaging resolution in microscopy." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase ‘optical axis’ lacks antecedent basis in the claims from which claim 23 depends. Independent claim 21 does not recite an optical axis or any optical system from which an optical axis would depend. The introduction of ‘optical axis’ in claim 23 without prior establishment of this element renders the claim indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty the structural relationship being claimed. For examination purposes, ‘optical axis’ has been interpreted as ‘an optical axis’ which is correlated to the direction of arrow 12e in Fig. 1A of the instant application.
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 21-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajo-Franklin CM, Ganesan PV, Boxer SG. “Variable incidence angle fluorescence interference contrast microscopy for z-imaging single objects.” Biophys J. 2005 Oct, hereinafter Ajo-Franklin, as cited in the IDS, and further in view of Chou (US 12181472 B2).
Regarding claim 21, Ajo-Franklin teaches in Figs. 2A and 2C: a height-controlled mirror (“VIA-FLIC uses interference from a very flat Si mirror to create structured illumination”; page 2761 col 2 para 2) comprised of:
a silicon mirror (“a very flat Si mirror”; page 2761 col 2 para 2);
a light modulation layer situated on the silicon mirror (“a single SiO2 thickness on Si”; page 2761 col 1 para 3).
Ajo-Franklin teaches to a configuration in which the sample is placed above Si layer: “the fluorescent sample is assembled above a reflective Si surface” (Abstract).
However, Ajo-Franklin fails to explicitly teach: a ridge fabricated on the light modulation layer, wherein the ridge has a ridge height that is configured to space a glass substrate from the light modulation layer at a specific distance.
In a related invention in the field of analytical procedures used to detect samples, Chou teaches in Fig. 1A (closed configuration): a ridge (“with 10 μm spacer”; col 62 lines 20-21) fabricated on the layer (second plate), wherein the ridge (spacer) has a ridge height that is configured to space a glass substrate from the layer (second plate) at a specific distance (“Conventional glass slide was used as the first plate and X-plate with 10 μm spacer”; col 62 lines 19-21).
Furthermore, Chou teaches this configuration such that “the uniform thickness of the layer is confined by the inner surfaces of the plates and is regulated by the plates and the spacers” (Chou, col 14 lines 52-54).
Although Chou does not teach that the layer opposite to the glass substrate is a light modulation layer specifically, it would be obvious to combine the teachings from Ajo-Franklin that teach a SiO2 layer on a Si mirror with the ideas from Chou that suggest the use of pillars to create space for the glass substrate.
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 Ajo-Franklin to incorporate the teachings of Chou to provide a device in which a ridge fabricated on the light modulation layer, wherein the ridge has a ridge height that is configured to space a glass substrate from the light modulation layer at a specific distance, for the purpose of regulating a uniform thickness between the inter surfaces of the plates (Chou, col 14 lines 52-54).
Regarding claim 22, Ajo-Franklin and Chou teach the mirror of claim 21. Ajo-Franklin further teaches in Figs. 2A and 2C: wherein said light modulation layer is a silicon dioxide layer (“a single SiO2 thickness on Si”; page 2761 col 1 para 3, see Fig. 2A).q
Regarding claim 25, Ajo-Franklin and Chou teach the mirror of claim 21. Ajo-Franklin fails to teach: the ridge height is 5-30 μm.
In a related invention in the field of analytical procedures used to detect samples, Chou teaches in Fig. 1A (closed configuration): the ridge height is 5-30 μm (“10 μm spacer”; col 62 lines 20-21).
Furthermore, Chou teaches this configuration such that “the uniform thickness of the layer is confined by the inner surfaces of the plates and is regulated by the plates and the spacers” (Chou, col 14 lines 52-54).
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 Ajo-Franklin to incorporate the teachings of Chou to provide a device in the ridge height is 5-30 μm, for the purpose of regulating a uniform thickness between the inter surfaces of the plates (Chou, col 14 lines 52-54).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajo-Franklin CM, Ganesan PV, Boxer SG. “Variable incidence angle fluorescence interference contrast microscopy for z-imaging single objects.” Biophys J. 2005 Oct, hereinafter Ajo-Franklin, as cited in the IDS, and Chou (US 12181472 B2), as in claim 21, and further in view of Jin (US 20200088982 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Ajo-Franklin and Chou teach the mirror of claim 21. As best understood, Ajo-Franklin further teaches: the mirror (“a very flat Si mirror”; page 2761 col 2 para 2) perpendicular to optical axis (see Fig. 2C which shows the optical axis perpendicular to the Si mirror) improves axial imaging resolution in microscopy (“Here we present a novel imaging technique, VIA-FLIC, which preserves the experimental simplicity of FLIC, but adds the ability to image isolated objects like VIA-TIRFM. As in FLIC, VIA-FLIC uses interference from a very flat Si mirror to create structured illumination”; page 2761 col 1 para 2, “fluorescence interference contrast microscopy (FLIC) and variable incidence angle total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy (VIA-TIRFM), have been developed to achieve z-resolution on the nanometer scale, and they are illustrated schematically in Fig. 1. As discussed in detail below, each of these surface generated structured illumination techniques has advantages and disadvantages. In an effort to capture the simplicity of FLIC and the versatility of VIA-TIRFM, we have developed a new technique, VIA-FLIC, that combines the advantages of both”; page 2759 col 2 para 1).
However, Ajo-Franklin fails to teach to a configuration that simultaneously improves axial and lateral resolution.
In a related invention in the field of microscopy Jin teaches: the mirror (110) perpendicular to optical axis (see Fig. 1) improves lateral and axial imaging resolution in microscopy (“Use of reflector 110 enhanced confinement of the point spread function which may generally improve the axial resolution about six-fold and the lateral resolution about two-fold for Stimulated Emission Depletion (STED) nanoscopy”; [0096]). furthermore, Jin teaches this configuration such that “The inventors have surprisingly found that the axial thickness of the confocal Point Spread Function (PSF) can be improved by replacing the common microscopy slide with a reflector. This may enable axial super-resolution in, for example, laser scanning microscopes” (Jin, [0096]).
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 Ajo-Franklin and Chou to incorporate the teachings of Jin to provide a device in which the mirror perpendicular to optical axis improves lateral and axial imaging resolution in microscopy, because it has been found that the axial thickness of the confocal Point (Jin, [0096]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajo-Franklin CM, Ganesan PV, Boxer SG. “Variable incidence angle fluorescence interference contrast microscopy for z-imaging single objects.” Biophys J. 2005 Oct, hereinafter Ajo-Franklin, as cited in the IDS, and Chou (US 12181472 B2), as in claim 21, and further in view of Liang (CN101290363A).
Regarding claim 24, Ajo-Franklin and Chou teach the mirror of claim 21. Ajo-Franklin further teaches: the light modulation layer has a thickness (“a single SiO2 thickness ”; page 2761 col 1 para 3, see Fig. 2A).
However, Ajo-Franklin fails to teach that: the thickness of the light modulation layer controls accuracy of the ridge height.
In a related invention in the field of methods for controlling the growth of multi-layer films to make multi-level micro-mirrors Liang teaches: the thickness of the light modulation layer controls accuracy of the ridge height (“The thickness of each film layer can be precisely controlled during deposition, thus allowing for precise control of the height between each mirror surface during fabrication”; [0016]).
Furthermore, Liang teaches this configuration such that “This effectively improves the longitudinal dimensional accuracy and repeatability of the steps, resulting in strong process controllability, good repeatability, and high horizontal accuracy” (Liang, [0016]).
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 Ajo-Franklin and Chou to incorporate the teachings of Liang to provide a device in which the thickness of the light modulation layer controls accuracy of the ridge height, for the purpose of improving the longitudinal dimensional accuracy and repeatability of the steps, resulting in strong process controllability, good repeatability, and high horizontal accuracy (Liang, [0016]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 4022521 A: microscope slide configuration containing ridges but no light modulation layer. See Fig. 4.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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
/PINPING SUN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights