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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, lines 2-3, the acronym “DIC” in the phrase “generating a DIC image” should be defined.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“A beam splitting device . . . configured to split the beam path into a plurality of beam paths” in claims 1-12 and 16.
“A computing device configured to generate a DIC image . . .” in claims 6-8.
“A computing device configured to carry out a transport-of-intensity equation, TIE, -based phase reconstruction . . .” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Safrani et al (9,880,377).
Regarding claim 1, Safrani (Figs. 1 and 2) discloses a device for observing a biological probe comprising an optical microscope 1800 (Col. 4, lines 46-52 states that orthogonal polarization interferometry unit 1800 can be any known optical interferometric microscopes such as a Linnik or Nomarski interferometric microscope) comprising a support structure (motorized stage 115 in Fig. 2) for supporting the biological probe 114 in a beam path of the optical microscope (light from the light source 101 passes through a beam splitter 110 to the sample arm of the microscope as seen in Fig. 2); a beam splitting device (the plurality of beam splitters 19, 20, 21 is the equivalent of the beam splitting device interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) above) arranged in the beam path downstream from the biological probe (see Fig. 1, showing the beam splitting device downstream of the biological probe, as it is located after interferometer unit 1800), wherein the beam splitting device is configured to split the beam path into a plurality of beam paths (see Fig. 1; beam splitter 19 splits the combined light into a path towards beam splitter 20 and beam splitter 21; beam splitter 21 further splits the light into additional paths); and a plurality of cameras 24, 27, 30, wherein each camera is arranged in one beam path of the plurality of beam paths (see Fig. 1 and the relation of cameras 24, 27, 30 with beam splitters 19, 20, and 21) and is configured to generate camera images of the biological probe (see Col. 5, lines 19-21); wherein, for at least some of the cameras, focal lengths of the cameras differ from one another or wavelength ranges captured by the cameras for generating the camera images of the biological probe differ from one another or sensor types of the cameras differ from one another (this limitation is met as the wavelength ranges captured by the cameras differ from each other as per Col. 5, lines 19-21, which states that the detectors have color pixels, and Col. 6, lines 13-16, which states that the interference images are recorded at three different wavelengths).
As for claim 2, Safrani discloses that the microscope is a polarized light microscope (see Col. 5, lines 49-51).
As for claim 3, Safrani discloses that the microscope is an interference-based microscope (see Col. 4, lines 49-51 or Col. 5, line 30-31, “Linnik like optical microscopy system”).
As for claim 4, Safrani discloses that the polarized light microscope is a differential interference contrast (DIC) microscope (see Col. 4, lines 46-53; see further Col. 6, lines 56-64 which discloses that the optical polarization interferometry unit can be a Nomarski or differential interference contrast interferometer).
As for claim 5, Safrani discloses that the plurality of cameras includes at least one polarization sensitive camera configured to generate a plurality of camera images according to different polarizations (see Col. 5, lines 5-9, where Safrani further discloses analyzers 23, 26, and 29 aligned at 45° to the S and P polarization planes or are rotated with alignments of 0°, 90°, and 45°, leading to a plurality of camera images according to different polarizations).
As for claim 6, Safrani discloses a computing device (computer 109) configured to generate a DIC image based on a mathematical combination of the camera images corresponding to different polarizations (Col. 6, lines 56-64 discloses that the optical polarization interferometry unit can be a Nomarski or differential interference contrast interferometer; Safrani further discloses analyzers 23, 26, and 29 aligned at 45° to the S and P polarization planes or are rotated with alignments of 0°, 90°, and 45°, respectively (see Col. 5, lines 5-9)) and a computer 109 that performs equations 1-16 to generate the DIC image corresponding to those different polarizations).
As for claim 7, Safrani discloses that the computing device is configured to carry out a DIC-based phase reconstruction (see Col. 6, lines 26-28, and in further detail, Col. 7, lines 58-65 and Col. 8, line 58 – Col. 9, line 4 and the associated equations with these citations).
As for claim 8, as Safrani discloses the generation of a DIC image, Safrani inherently discloses the generation of a brightfield image, as brightfield images are generated as part of the DIC image generation process.
As for claim 9, Safrani discloses that the cameras include at least one color camera (see, for example, Col., 5, lines 19-21 or Col. 6, lines 30-34).
As for claim 10, claim 1, the claim on which claim 10 depends, includes a plurality of different features for the plurality of cameras set forth in the alternative. In the rejection set forth above for claim 1, the examiner interpreted that claim to read that the plurality of cameras capture images having a plurality of different wavelength ranges from one another. Once one alternative condition has been met, the entire claim is rejected. Since that alternative condition has been satisfied, the entire alternative claim limitation is also rejected. As a result, any further limitations directed to an alternative that was not treated in claim 1, which in this case is the fact that the focal lengths of the camera differ from each other, similarly stands rejected. As a result, claim 10 is rejected due to the alternative limitation in claim 1, that the wavelength ranges captured by the cameras for generating the camera images of the biological probe differ from one another, being satisfied.
As for claim 11, Safrani discloses that the cameras are synchronized to generate camera images of the biological probe at the same time (see Col. 5, lines 19-21 or Col. 6, lines 13-16, which states that the interference images are recorded at three different wavelengths simultaneously).
As for claim 12, Safrani discloses that the cameras are firmly attached at predefined locations (inherent to the disclosure of Safrani, as Safrani does not disclose cameras that are able to move or translate from their positions as seen in Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 13, Safrani (Figs. 1 and 2) discloses a method for observing a biological probe, using a device comprising a plurality of cameras, the method comprising splitting a beam path using beam splitters 19, 20, 21 into a plurality of beam paths (see Fig. 1; beam splitter 19 splits the combined light into a path towards beam splitter 20 and beam splitter 21; beam splitter 21 further splits the light into additional paths), the biological probe in the beam path (see Fig. 2; the sample 114 is on stage 115, and light that reflects from the sample is joined with reference light by beam splitter 110 to be sent on the optical path that leads to the beam splitters); arranging each camera 24, 27, 30 of the plurality of cameras in one respective beam path of the plurality of beam paths (see Fig. 1 and the relation of cameras 24, 27, 30 with beam splitters 19, 20, 21), and generating at least one camera image of the biological probe by at least one camera of the plurality of cameras of the device (see Col. 5, lines 19-21 and Col. 6, lines 13-16).
As for claim 14, Safrani discloses that at least two cameras of the plurality of cameras of the device simultaneously generate a respective camera image of the biological probe (Col. 5, lines 19-21, which states that the detectors have color pixels, and Col. 6, lines 13-16, which states that the interference images are recorded at three different wavelengths). color
As for claim 15, Safrani discloses the step of generating a DIC image based on a mathematical combination of the camera images corresponding to different polarizations (Col. 6, lines 56-64 discloses that the optical polarization interferometry unit can be a Nomarski or differential interference contrast interferometer; Safrani further discloses analyzers 23, 26, and 29 aligned at 45° to the S and P polarization planes or are rotated with alignments of 0°, 90°, and 45°, respectively (see Col. 5, lines 5-9)) and a computer 109 that performs equations 1-16 to generate the DIC image corresponding to those different polarizations).
As for claim 16, Safrani discloses that the interference-based microscope is an interference reflection microscope (the Linnik optical microscopy system disclosed in Fig. 2 as indicated above regarding claim 3 is an interference reflection microscope).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0080237 to Mehta et al (Fig. 6), US 2019/0339502 to Regensburger et al (Fig. 1), US 2014/0374575 to Takesue et al (Fig. 9), and US 2012/0188358 to Kimura (Fig. 1) all disclose various optical interference microscopes featuring a beam splitting device and a plurality of cameras.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 November 20, 2025