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 .
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.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on the application filed on April 27th, 2023 (EP 23315122.4). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated July 11th, 2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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.
Claims 2-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “adjusting a polarization handedness of the illumination light relative to a wavelength handedness of the illumination light” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what “wavelength handedness” is here and how exactly it relates to polarization handedness. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “adjusting a polarization of the illumination light”.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “a circular polarization of a first handedness that is adapted to a predefined wavefront handedness” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what “a predefined wavefront handedness” is here. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “a circular polarization”.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “shape the localizing light distribution as an optical vortex pattern or a half-moon pattern” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what exact shapes an “optical vortex” or “half-moon” pattern correspond to here as there could be taken subjectively. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, these limitations will be interpreted to mean “shape the localizing light distribution”.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a wavelength band having a wavelength width smaller than a predefinable value” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what a wavelength width means here, as wavelengths are distinct values, and it is unclear what “a wavelength width smaller than a predefinable value” is here as this limitation seems incredibly arbitrary. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “a wavelength band”.
Regarding claims 4 and 6-8, these claims depend on a rejected base claim and are therefore rejected for at least the reasons stated supra.
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) 1-3, 5-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sirat et al. (US 2017/0336326 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sirat teaches a single-particle localization microscope, comprising:
a light source configured to generate illumination light for illuminating a sample region (See, e.g., module 800 in Fig. 5 which generates light to illuminate a sample), and
an optical illumination system configured to shape the illumination light into a localizing light distribution having a substantially zero intensity minimum at a target point within the sample region (See, e.g., the optics associated with microscope 200 in Fig. 5), the localizing light distribution being adapted to cause a single particle in a fluorescent state located in the sample region outside the intensity minimum to emit fluorescent light (See, e.g., paragraph [0055] which explains this, and note that the microscope shown in Fig. 2 works in this way per paragraphs [0015]-[0027]),
wherein the optical illumination system is further configured to shape the illumination light into an auxiliary light distribution having a non-zero intensity at the target point such that the auxiliary light distribution is defined in a spatial extent and/or in its shape by the localizing light distribution (See, e.g., Fig. 5 which shows this and note that there is necessarily some intensity at the sample and thus the light distribution can be said to be defined in a special extent by it).
Regarding claim 2, Sirat teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the optical illumination system comprises a beam shaper configured to shape the localizing light distribution and the auxiliary light distribution by selectively adjusting a polarization handedness of the illumination light relative to a wavefront handedness of the illumination light (Note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejection above because per paragraph [0285] the wave emitted by the optics is circularly polarized).
Regarding claim 3, Sirat teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the beam shaper is configured to generate the localizing light distribution by modifying the illumination light to have a circular polarization of a first handedness that is adapted to a predefined wavefront handedness (Note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejection above because per paragraph [0285] the wave emitted by the optics is circularly polarized).
Regarding claim 5, Sirat teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the beam shaper is configured to shape the localizing light distribution as an optical vortex pattern or a half-moon pattern (Note this light is met in view of the 112 rejections above because there is a shaped light distribution).
Regarding claim 6, Sirat teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the optical illumination system comprises a single optical path along which the illumination light propagates from the beam shaper towards the sample region (See, e.g., Fig. 5 which shows this).
Regarding claim 7, Sirat teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the beam shaper comprises an electro-optic device configured for conical diffraction (See, e.g., module 700 in Fig. 5 which uses conical diffraction per paragraphs [0435].
Regarding claim 8, Sirat teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the beam shaper further comprises a dynamic polarization adapter downstream of the electro-optic device (See, e.g., paragraph [0570] which explains this).
Regarding claim 9, Sirat teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the optical illumination system is configured to combine the illumination light propagating along a first optical path and forming the localizing light distribution in the sample region with the illumination light propagating along a second optical path (See, e.g., Fig. 5) and forming an Airy light distribution in the sample region in order to shape the auxiliary light distribution in the sample region (See, e.g., paragraph [0026]), the combined illumination light propagating toward the sample region along a common beam path in which the first optical path and the second optical path are merged (See, e.g., Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Sirat teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the light source is configured to generate the illumination light with only one single predefined wavelength or a wavelength band having a wavelength width smaller than a predefinable value (Note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejections above as there is necessarily a wavelength band).
Regarding claim 12, Sirat teaches a method for localizing a single particle in a sample region, the method comprising:
generating light to illuminate the sample region (See, e.g., module 800 in Fig. 5 which generates light to illuminate a sample), wherein the illuminating the sample region is performed by
shaping the light into a localizing light distribution having a substantially zero intensity minimum at a target point within the sample region, the localizing light distribution being adapted to cause a single particle in a fluorescent state located in the sample region outside the intensity minimum to emit fluorescent light (See, e.g., the optics associated with microscope 200 in Fig. 5, and paragraph [0055] which explains this, and note that the microscope shown in Fig. 2 works in this way per paragraphs [0015]-[0027]), and
shaping the light into an auxiliary light distribution having a non-zero intensity at the target point such that the auxiliary light distribution is defined in a spatial extent and/or in its shape by the localizing light distribution (See, e.g., Fig. 5 which shows this and note that there is necessarily some intensity at the sample and thus the light distribution can be said to be defined in a special extent by it).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirat et al. (US 2017/0336326 A1) in view of Luther et al. (US 2006/0033920 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sirat teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the light source comprises a plurality of light source units, each light source unit configured to generate light of a distinct wavelength.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Luther teaches the use of a light source comprising a plurality of light source units configured to generate light of a distinct wavelength (See, e.g., abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source of Sirat to be a plurality of light sources, as taught by Luther, for the purpose of having more utility in the device (Note that having a larger range of working wavelengths necessarily increases utility in the device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13-17 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.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the sample region is illuminated with the auxiliary light distribution to perform an auxiliary light manipulation of the sample region other than illuminating the sample region with the localizing light distribution for single-particle localization.
Regarding claims 14-17, these claims depend on an allowable base claim and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons stated supra.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights