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 8/21/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims filed 8/21/26 have been considered as follows.
Objections of the claims:
The objections are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
35 USC 112 Rejections of the claims:
The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
35 USC 102/103 Rejections of the claims:
Applicant argues the rejections should be withdrawn because Cohen (US 20180284418, of record) does not teach all the features in claim 1.
To the extent it may apply, Applicant appears to argue Cohen does not teach there is no additional lens between the lenslet array and the sample plane, which is moot since “there is no additional lens between the lenslet array and the sample plane” is not part of the claim language.
Therefore Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1,4,6 is/are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Cohen (US 20180284418, of record).
PNG
media_image1.png
300
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Cohen teaches (Figs. 5A,5C) An optical system configured for Fourier Ptychography comprising:
at least one array of light emitters ([92], “LEDs”), wherein each light emitter is configured for emitting at least one illumination light beam towards a sample plane (Object plane in Figs. 5A,5C);
at least one lenslet array comprising a plurality of lenses ([94], MLA in Figs. 5A,5C), wherein each of the lenses is dedicated to at least one of the light emitters of the array of light emitters, wherein orientation and shape of the respective lens is adapted to the dedicated light emitter, wherein the lenslet array is configured for focusing the illumination light beams in the sample plane (lens array in Fig. 5C replaces pinhole array in Fig. 5A, [94], “ a micro lens array (MLA) is used instead of the pinhole array”), and wherein the array of light emitters and the lenslet array are arranged such that the sample plane is illuminated by the illumination light beams under different illumination angles (as seen in Fig. 5C, collimated beams illuminate Object plane from different angles).
Regarding claim 4, Cohen further teaches The optical system according to claim 1, wherein the optical system comprises at least one refractive optical element (L1 in Figs. 5C), wherein the refractive optical element is arranged such that the illumination light beam having passed the lenslet array impinges on the refractive optical element before impinging on the sample plane (as seen in Fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 6, Cohen further teaches The optical system according to claim 1, wherein the lenses of the lenslet array are arranged in a direction of propagation of the light beam from the light emitters to the sample plane (as seen in Fig. 5C).
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 of this title, 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) 5,7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen.
Regarding claim 5, Cohen teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach The optical system according to claim 4, wherein the refractive optical element comprises at least one Fresnel lens, wherein a diameter of the Fresnel lens is ≥200 mm.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the refractive optical element comprises at least one Fresnel lens would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of reducing the thickness of the lens therefore reducing the weight and size of the system.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Cohen by having the refractive optical element comprises at least one Fresnel lens for the purposes of reducing the weight and size of the system.
Further the diameter of the Fresnel lens is “a result-effective variable” because it confers the size of the object being observed. And 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 diameter of the Fresnel lens is ≥200 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
One would be motivated to have a diameter of the Fresnel lens is ≥200 mm for the purposes of having observing large object.
Regarding claim 7, Cohen teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach The optical system according to claim 1, wherein the lenses of the lenslet array have a numerical aperture that is less than or equal to 0.5.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the lenses of the lenslet array have a numerical aperture that is less than or equal to 0.5 would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of reducing aberration.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Cohen by having the lenses of the lenslet array have a numerical aperture that is less than or equal to 0.5 for the purposes of reducing aberration.
Regarding claim 8, Cohen teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, and further teaches The optical system according to claim 1, wherein the light emitter comprises at least one light-emitting diode ([92], “LEDs”).
Cohen does not explicitly teach the light-emitting diode has a emission range at least partially located in the spectral range from 340 to 800 nm.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the light-emitting diode has a emission range at least partially located in the spectral range from 340 to 800 nm would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of providing an image in the visible wavelength range.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ahn by having the light-emitting diode has a emission range at least partially located in the spectral range from 340 to 800 nm for the purposes of providing an image in the visible wavelength range.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Ahn (US 20230040925, of record).
Regarding claim 2, Cohen teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not teach The optical system according to claim 1, wherein the optical system comprises at least one parabolic reflector, wherein the parabolic reflector is arranged such that the illumination light beam having passed lenses (the lenslet array) impinges on the parabolic reflector before impinging on the sample plane.
PNG
media_image2.png
370
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Ahn (Fig. 6, see above) teaches an optical system comprises at least one parabolic reflector, wherein the parabolic reflector is arranged such that the illumination light beam having passed lenses (131,133) impinges on the parabolic reflector before impinging on the sample plane.
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 optical system comprises at least one parabolic reflector, wherein the parabolic reflector is arranged such that the illumination light beam having passed lenses impinges on the parabolic reflector before impinging on the sample plane as taught by Ahn in the teaching of Cohen for the purposes of improving image quality.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Ahn (US 20230040925, of record) and further in view of AHN2 (KR 102315016, as evidenced by the translation, all of record).
Regarding claim 3, Cohen in view of Ahn teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 2, but does not teach The optical system according to claim 2, wherein the parabolic reflector comprises a segmented parabolic reflector.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, AHN2 teaches a parabolic reflector comprises a segmented parabolic reflector (Abstract: segmented mirrors).
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 parabolic reflector comprises a segmented parabolic reflector as taught by AHN2 in the teaching of Cohen in view of Ahn for the purposes of better control of light focusing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday 9am - 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s SPE, Pinping Sun can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234
Prosecution Insights