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
The instant application having Application No. 18/698,066 filed on April 3, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on April 3, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 4/3/2024 and 11/14/2024 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending, except where lined through.
The information disclosure statement filed 11/14/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. In particular, no copy of reference 1: S. Talapatra, J. Hong, M. McFarland, A.R. Nayak, C. Zhang, J. Katz, J. Sullivan, M. Twardowski, J. Rines, andP. Donaghay, "Characterization of biophysical interactions in the water column using in situ digital holography," Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 473, 29-51 (2013) was provided. However, the examiner retrieved a copy thereof and has provided this copy along with the present office action, listing it in the PTO-892. However, the copy provided of reference 8, “Faust, M.A., Gulledge, R.A., 2002. “Identifying harmful marine dinoflagellates” was not legible either to the examiner or to the Optical Character Recognition software of the office. The examiner was not able to retrieve a copy thereof. Thus reference 8 has been struck through as not considered.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacNeil et al, “Plankton classification with high-throughput submersible holographic microscopy and transfer learning,” BMC Ecology and Evolution, 2021 (cited in an IDS, hereafter MacNeil) in view of Dyomin et al. “Digital holographic camera for plankton monitoring” Practical Holography XXXIII: Displays, Materials, and Applications, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 10944, 109440L (hereafter Dyomin) and Embry et al. US 2020/0124722 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Embry).
Regarding claim 1, MacNeil teaches “A submersible holographic imaging system (page 2 col. 2 “Methods The HoloSea: submersible digital in‑line holographic microscope (DIHM)”), said system comprising:
a camera portion (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph “camera sensor (CMOS)”, see also camera in Fig. 1) and a laser portion (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph “solid-state laser (405 nm)”, see also point source in Fig. 1) oriented parallel to each other (see Fig. 1) on a base plate (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph: “Housed in an aluminium alloy casing” see also base that connects the source and camera in Fig. 1) and separated from each other by a distance (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph “The camera is aligned 54 mm away from the point source” see also sample space in Fig. 1) which can be adjusted (page 8 col. 1 first paragraph: “Adjusting the point source-to-camera distance to expand sample space illumination”), said camera portion… is located across from and aligned with (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph “The camera is aligned 54 mm away from the point source” see also sample space in Fig. 1) a laser illumination window (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph: “sapphire window”) in said laser portion (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph: “laser… acting as a point source to emit spherical light waves through a sapphire window”);
said camera portion that can operate lens-less or with microscope objectives (page 2 col. 1 second paragraph: “Digital in-line holographic microscopy (DIHM) with a point-source laser is a simple lens-free implementation of Gabor-style holography” Thus MacNeil teaches the option of lens-less.);
a storage unit coupled to said camera portion for saving image data therein (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph: “recorded holograms are stored as PNG images”, wherever the PNG images are stored is a storage unit that is coupled to the camera portion in that the holograms recorded by the camera are stored therein).”
However, MacNeil fails to explicitly teach “said camera portion having an imaging window.”
Dyomin teaches (claim 1) “A submersible holographic imaging system (abstract “submersible digital holographic camera”), said system comprising:
a camera portion (Fig. 1 CMOS camera 5) and a laser portion (semiconductor laser 1) oriented parallel to each other on a base plate (see Figs. 1b and 2a, page 3 third paragraph: “metal welded frame with base surfaces”) and separated from each other by a distance (see Fig. 2a) … said camera portion having an imaging window (Fig. 1 window 3 in front of CMOS 5, see also the final paragraph of page 2 “The modules are placed into two rugged deep-water housings with windows and sockets”) that is located across from and aligned with a laser illumination window (Fig. 1 window 3 in front of laser 1, see also the final paragraph of page 2 “The modules are placed into two rugged deep-water housings with windows and sockets”) in said laser portion (see Fig. 1);
said camera portion that can operate lens-less or with microscope objectives (Fig. 1 receiving objective 2 between window 3 and CMOS 5);
a storage unit coupled to said camera portion for saving image data therein (page 2 lines 5-9: “camera (5) records the interference pattern of these two coherent waves, which is the digital hologram of the investigated volume. This digital hologram represents a two-dimensional discrete array of quantized intensities for the interference pattern formed by the reference and objective waves and is subsequently used as the initial field distribution for restoration of the image of the investigated volume.” Because the digital holograms are subsequently used, there exists a storage unit that stores the digital holograms and is coupled to the camera that records the digital holograms).”
Dyomin further teaches (page 1 first paragraph): “monitoring of the world ocean” and (page 2 last paragraph): “The modules are placed into two rugged deep-water housings with windows and sockets”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enclose the camera of MacNeil within a deep-water housing behind a window as taught by Dyomin so that the camera is protected during deep-water ocean monitoring as taught by Dyomin (pages 1 first paragraph and page 2 last paragraph).
However, MacNeil fails to explicitly teach “and a power supply for powering said camera portion, said laser portion and said storage unit.”
Embry teaches (claim 1) “A submersible (abstract: “all underwater structures or equipment installed underwater”) … imaging system (cameras 328), said system comprising:
a camera portion (cameras 328) and a laser portion (paragraph [0052]: “the light source 404 is a pulsed beam laser.) …
a storage unit (data storage or memory 464, see also paragraph [0047]: “The metrology system 202 can also provide additional capabilities including, but not limited to, data storage and backup,”) coupled to said camera portion for saving image data therein (paragraph [0047]: “Cameras and lights 328 can be mounted… to enable the acquisition of visual data… The metrology system 202 can also provide… data storage.” Thus amongst the data stored is visual data from the camera, i.e. image data.); and
a power supply (paragraph [0047]: “batteries and a power control system 340.”) for powering said camera portion, said laser portion and said storage unit (paragraph [0047]: “batteries and a power control system 340 can be included which allow for long-term autonomous deployment.” For long-term autonomous deployment the batteries must supply the power for all elements that require power including the camera, laser and storage.).”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a battery and power control system as taught by Embry in the submersible imaging system of the MacNeil – Dyomin combination for the purpose of providing power during long-term autonomous deployment as taught by Embry (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 7, MacNeil teaches “A method for implementing (see steps below) a submersible holographic imaging system (page 2 col. 2 “Methods The HoloSea: submersible digital in‑line holographic microscope (DIHM)”), said method comprising:
configuring a camera portion (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph “camera sensor (CMOS)”, see also camera in Fig. 1) and a laser portion (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph “solid-state laser (405 nm)”, see also point source in Fig. 1) to be oriented parallel to each other (see Fig. 1) on a base plate (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph: “Housed in an aluminium alloy casing” see also base that connects the source and camera in Fig. 1) and separated from each other by a distance (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph “The camera is aligned 54 mm away from the point source” see also sample space in Fig. 1) which can be adjusted (page 8 col. 1 first paragraph: “Adjusting the point source-to-camera distance to expand sample space illumination”) and wherein said camera portion… is located across from and aligned with (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph “The camera is aligned 54 mm away from the point source” see also sample space in Fig. 1) a laser illumination window (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph: “sapphire window”) in said laser portion (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph: “laser… acting as a point source to emit spherical light waves through a sapphire window”);
configuring said camera portion to operate lens-less or with microscope objectives (page 2 col. 1 second paragraph: “Digital in-line holographic microscopy (DIHM) with a point-source laser is a simple lens-free implementation of Gabor-style holography” Thus MacNeil teaches the option of lens-less.);
providing an onboard storage unit for saving image data therein and coupling said storage unit to said camera portion (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph: “recorded holograms are stored as PNG images”, wherever the PNG images are stored is a storage unit that is coupled to the camera portion in that the holograms recorded by the camera are stored therein)…”
However, Mac Neil fails to explicitly teach “wherein said camera portion comprises an imaging window.”
Dyomin teaches (claim 7) “A method for implementing (see steps below) a submersible holographic imaging system (abstract “submersible digital holographic camera”), said method comprising:
configuring a camera portion (Fig. 1 CMOS camera 5) and a laser portion (semiconductor laser 1) to be oriented parallel to each other on a base plate (see Figs. 1b and 2a, page 3 third paragraph: “metal welded frame with base surfaces”) and separated from each other by a distance (see Fig. 2a)… and wherein said camera portion comprises an imaging window (Fig. 1 window 3 in front of CMOS 5, see also the final paragraph of page 2 “The modules are placed into two rugged deep-water housings with windows and sockets”) that is located across from and aligned with a laser illumination window (Fig. 1 window 3 in front of laser 1, see also the final paragraph of page 2 “The modules are placed into two rugged deep-water housings with windows and sockets”) in said laser portion (see Fig. 1);
configuring said camera portion to operate lens-less or with microscope objectives (Fig. 1 receiving objective 2 between window 3 and CMOS 5);
providing an onboard storage unit for saving image data therein and coupling said storage unit to said camera portion (page 2 lines 5-9: “camera (5) records the interference pattern of these two coherent waves, which is the digital hologram of the investigated volume. This digital hologram represents a two-dimensional discrete array of quantized intensities for the interference pattern formed by the reference and objective waves and is subsequently used as the initial field distribution for restoration of the image of the investigated volume.” Because the digital holograms are subsequently used, there exists a storage unit that stores the digital holograms and is coupled to the camera that records the digital holograms)…
Dyomin further teaches (page 1 first paragraph): “monitoring of the world ocean” and (page 2 last paragraph): “The modules are placed into two rugged deep-water housings with windows and sockets”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enclose the camera of MacNeil within a deep-water housing behind a window as taught by Dyomin so that the camera is protected during deep-water ocean monitoring as taught by Dyomin (pages 1 first paragraph and page 2 last paragraph).
However, MacNeil fails to teach “and coupling an onboard power supply to said camera portion, said laser portion and said storage unit.”
Embry teaches (claim 7) “A method for implementing (see steps below) a submersible (abstract: “all underwater structures or equipment installed underwater”) … imaging system (cameras 328), said method comprising:
configuring a camera portion (cameras 328) and a laser portion (paragraph [0052]: “the light source 404 is a pulsed beam laser.)…
providing an onboard storage unit (data storage or memory 464, see also paragraph [0047]: “The metrology system 202 can also provide additional capabilities including, but not limited to, data storage and backup,”) for saving image data therein and coupling said storage unit to said camera portion (paragraph [0047]: “Cameras and lights 328 can be mounted… to enable the acquisition of visual data… The metrology system 202 can also provide… data storage.” Thus amongst the data stored is visual data from the camera, i.e. image data.); and
coupling an onboard power supply (paragraph [0047]: “batteries and a power control system 340.”) to said camera portion, said laser portion and said storage unit (paragraph [0047]: “batteries and a power control system 340 can be included which allow for long-term autonomous deployment.” For long-term autonomous deployment the batteries must supply the power for all elements that require power including the camera, laser and storage.).”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a battery and power control system as taught by Embry in the submersible imaging system of the MacNeil – Dyomin combination for the purpose of providing power during long-term autonomous deployment as taught by Embry (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, the MacNeil – Dyomin – Embry combination teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 7, and MacNeil further teaches “wherein said adjustable distance is 1 - 20 cm (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph: “The camera is aligned 54 mm away from the point source” which is 5.4 cm which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claims 5 and 11, the MacNeil – Dyomin – Embry combination teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 7, and MacNeil further teaches “wherein said system can be configured to acquire image data continuously or in a burst mode (page 9 col. 1 third paragraph: “These advantages allow in-line holographic microscopes to be… stationed in situ for continuous monitoring.” Thus MacNeil teaches the option of continuous image acquisition).”
Regarding claims 6 and 12, the MacNeil – Dyomin – Embry combination teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 7, however, MacNeil fails to teach “comprising respective shutters for each of said windows.”
Embry teaches a shutter (fast shutter 436) for a window (window 428, see paragraph [0057]).
Embry further teaches (paragraph [0057]): “A fast shutter 436 is provided to block any stray light from the primary beam as it exits the window 428, after being directed by the scanning device 424. The fast shutter 436 is timed with high speed electronics, which may be implemented by a processor 448, to block the window 428 reflection from a transmitted pulse and then open quickly to capture returns from close targets. Light passed by the fast shutter 436 is then provided to the receiver 444. The receiver 444 detects the light reflected from a target… The receiver 444 thus is an optical sensor or detector, such as… charge coupled device (CCD) detector, complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) detector.”
Thus Embry teaches shuttered operations with coordinated high speed timing for a light source and a receiving detector that can be an imaging detector such as a CCD or CMOS.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a shutter for each of the laser and the camera of MacNeil as taught by Embry in order to provide high speed coordinated blocking of stray light as taught by Embry.
Note that the combination of references then teaches “respective shutters for each of said windows” because the camera and the laser in MacNeil are in two separate units, and thus would each need a shutter as suggested by Embry.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacNeil et al, “Plankton classification with high-throughput submersible holographic microscopy and transfer learning,” BMC Ecology and Evolution, 2021 (cited in an IDS, hereafter MacNeil) in view of Dyomin et al. “Digital holographic camera for plankton monitoring” Practical Holography XXXIII: Displays, Materials, and Applications, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 10944, 109440L (hereafter Dyomin) and Embry et al. US 2020/0124722 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Embry) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Lee et al. KR 101742018 (hereafter Lee, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the MacNeil – Dyomin – Embry combination teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 7, and MacNeil further teaches “wherein said camera portion comprises a camera of … pixels for acquiring image data at up to 3.2 Hz (page 3 col. 1 first paragraph “high frame rate (>20 s-1)”. Where 20 s-1 is 20 Hz which is greater than 3.2 Hz and thus the camera can acquire image data at 3.2 Hz, since it’s capable of even faster frame rates.).”
However, MacNeil fails to explicitly teach “a camera of 4920 x 3280 pixels.”
Lee teaches “a camera of 4920 x 3280 pixels (page 5 third paragraph “The camera 51 may be a model having a pixel resolution of 4928 3280, but the present invention is not limited thereto. Any camera capable of capturing an image projected on the projection body 20 can be used.” Note that a camera of 4928 x 3280 pixels also comprises 4920 x 3280 pixels, with the last 8 pixels either cropped, not read and/or in addition.).”
It is a well-established proposition that a change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
MacNeil discloses the claimed invention except for the size in pixels of the detector. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to choose a camera model of 4920 x 3280 pixels as taught by Lee, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component and Lee teaches that the choice of the pixel resolution is within ordinary skill (page 5 third paragraph).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacNeil et al, “Plankton classification with high-throughput submersible holographic microscopy and transfer learning,” BMC Ecology and Evolution, 2021 (cited in an IDS, hereafter MacNeil) in view of Dyomin et al. “Digital holographic camera for plankton monitoring” Practical Holography XXXIII: Displays, Materials, and Applications, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 10944, 109440L (hereafter Dyomin), Embry et al. US 2020/0124722 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Embry) and Lee et al. KR 101742018 (hereafter Lee, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation). as applied to claims 2 and 8 above, and further in view of Nayak et al. “Evidence for ubiquitous preferential particle orientation in representative oceanic shear flows” Limnology and Oceanography 2018, vol. 63, pp. 122-143 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Nayak).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, the MacNeil – Dyomin – Embry – Lee combination teaches the system of claim 2 and the method of claim 8, however, MacNeil fails to teach “wherein said camera can achieve a 5.5 µm/pixel resolution.”
Nayak teaches a submersible holographic imaging system (HOLOCAM Fig. 1a-d) “wherein said camera can achieve a 0.5 - 5.5 µm/pixel resolution (page 125 col. 1 paragraph 1: “a resolution of 4.59 µm per pixel… a resolution of 0.34 µm per pixel” both of which are in the claimed range).”
Nayak further teaches (page 125 col. 1 paragraph 1): “The low magnification data was recorded on an Imperx 2048 X 2048 pixel CCD camera, imaging a field of view (FOV) of 9.4 X 9.4 mm, corresponding to a resolution of 4.59 µm per pixel. The high magnification holograms were imaged using a JAI 2432 X 2058 pixel camera, with the FOV spanning 0.83 X 0.7 mm, corresponding to a resolution of 0.34 µm per pixel. Thus, the sample volumes imaged correspond to 3.53 mL and 23.2 µL, respectively, for each low and high magnification hologram. This dual magnification design could be used to resolve particle sizes over nearly 4 orders of magnitude.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a camera with a pixel resolution between 0.5 - 5.5 µm/pixel as taught by Nayak in the system and method of the MacNeil – Dyomin – Embry – Lee combination for the purpose of resolving particle sizes over nearly 4 orders of magnitude as taught by Nayak (page 125 col. 1 paragraph 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barron et al. WO 2017/100061 A1 “Systems and Methods for Multiscopic Noise Reduction and High-Dynamic Range” pertinent to claims 5 and 11 if “or” were amended to “and”
see paragraphs [0046]-[0047]: “In an example embodiment, the image capture systems 110 and 120 may be configured to capture image frames at a rate of 30 frames per second (FPS). However, image capture systems having greater or lesser frame rates are possible.
Additionally or alternatively, the image capture systems 110 and 120 may include a "burst" capture mode having a burst frame race. The burst frame race may include a capture frame rate that is faster than normal over a brief period of time. For example, in a scenario in which the image capture systems 110 and 120 have a "normal" frame rate of 30 FPS, the image capture systems 110 and 120 may each be operable to provide burst image data, which may include two sets of ten image frames (one set from each image capture system) captured consecutively at 60 FPS. Other burst image frame amounts and other burst frame rates are possible.”
Chang US 2009/0190918 “Mechanical Shutter and Camera Module Having the Same” paragraph [0023]: “The shutter blades 20 can be copper or aluminum.” pertinent to the copper shutters of the instant specification and claims 6 and 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights