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
The amendments to the claims, filed on 03/13/2026, have been entered and made of record.
Claims 7, 18 and 21 are cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-17, 19, 20, 22 and 23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Arguments presented in the Remarks (“Remarks") filed on 03/13/2026 have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
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 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 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 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cline et al. (“Cline”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2002/0093563 A1] in view of Levene et al. (“Levene”) [US 10,677,730 B1]
Regarding claim 1, Cline meets the claim limitations as follows:
A multimodal microscopy system comprising [Fig. 1: ‘an imaging system10’]:
an illumination module [Fig. 1. 2; para. 0029: ‘Combination Light Source 36’] configured to provide a light beam to a sample (i.e. ‘the tissue under examination’) [para. 0003-0004] under test via a delivery path (i.e. ‘a non-coherent fiber-optic illumination guide of the endoscope’ ‘38’) [Fig. 1, 2; para. 0029, 0039: ‘the combination light source 36 to an illumination guide 38’], wherein the illumination module is configured to operate (i.e. mode switch) [Fig. 1: ‘36’; para. 0015: ‘mode switch to change from white light imaging to fluorescence imaging or vice versa’] between a transmission mode (i.e. ‘fluorescence imaging’, light emitted from fluorescence target) and a reflection mode (i.e. ‘white light imaging’); and
an optical arrangement (e.g. ‘mirror 190’) [Fig. 6] configured to receive the light beam from the sample through a detection path (i.e. ‘a coherent fiber-optic imaging guide of the endoscope’) [Fig. 3, 6; para. 0003-0004] to generate a microscopy image of the sample,
wherein the optical arrangement (e.g. ‘movable mirror 186’) [Fig. 1, 6: ‘Mode switch’, ‘Mirror Controller’] is operable to switch (e.g. ‘Proximity switches 192, 194’) [Abstract] among a plurality of imaging modalities (i.e. ‘switching between white light and fluorescence endoscopy imaging modes’) using the detection path shared by the plurality of imaging modalities, and the plurality of imaging modalities comprises
brightfield microscopy (i.e. ‘white light’ [in light of claim 4: ‘the broadband light’, ‘switched to brightfield microscopy’]) [Fig. 6; para. 0015, 0060: ‘When in the imaging system is in the white light imaging mode’],
fluorescent microscopy (i.e. ‘a broadband light with a filter or a narrowband light source’ [in light of claim 6: ‘switched to fluorescent microscopy’]) [Fig. 6: filters 1, 2; para. 0004, 0015, 0029, 0033, 0060: ‘Broadband white .. or fluorescence excitation light (typically at 437nm+10nm)’; ‘a blue fluorescence excitation light filter’; ‘When in the imaging system is in fluorescence imaging mode’], and
endoscopic microscopy (i.e. a broadband light or a narrowband light’ [in light of claim 10: ‘switched to endoscopic microscopy’]) [Fig. 6: filters 1, 2; para. 0004, 0015, 0029, 0033, 0060: ‘Broadband white .. or fluorescence excitation light (typically at 437nm+10nm)’; ‘a blue fluorescence excitation light filter’; ‘When in the imaging system is in fluorescence imaging mode’. Note: the illumination modules in fluorescent microscopy and in endoscopic microscopy have the same scope of light characteristics “broadband or narrowband light source” (in view of claims 6 and 10). Thus, the fluorescent microscopy and in endoscopic microscopy are construed to be the same type of microscopy].
Cline does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the illumination module is configured to operate between a transmission mode and a reflection mode;
However in the same field of endeavor Levene discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the illumination module is configured to operate between a transmission mode and a reflection mode [Fig. 2; col. 8, ll. 45-50: ‘the sample can be illuminated from below … Alternatively, the sample may be illuminated from above’].
Cline and Levene are combinable because they are from the same field of microscope.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Cline and Level as motivation to include two modes “inverted microscope” and upright microscope” for providing consistent signal intensity with maximized imaging speeds [Levene: Abstract].
Claims 2 - 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cline in view of Levene in further view of Axelrod et al. (“Axelrod”) [US 2011/0282192 A1]
Regarding claim 2, Cline meets the claim limitations as follows:
The multimodal microscopy system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the optical arrangement comprises: an objective lens [Fig. 6: lens] configured to receive the light beam from the sample; a tunable filter [Fig. 6: filter 1, 2] optically coupled to the objective lens, the tunable filter operable to select a wavelength [Fig. 6: Δλ1; Δλ2] or intensity or a range of wavelengths or intensities of the light beam; a tube lens [Fig. 1, 6: a tube of endoscope] optically coupled to the tunable filter; and a microscopy-adaptable camera [Fig. 6: CCD, Camera Head 44] optically coupled to the tube lens for capturing the microscopy image of the sample.
Cline does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
a tunable filter optically coupled to the objective lens, the tunable filter operable to select a wavelength or intensity or a range of wavelengths or intensities of the light beam.
However in the same field of endeavor Axelrod discloses the deficient claim as follows:
a tunable filter [Fig. 2, 3, 6; para. 0090: ‘a tunable filter’] optically coupled to the objective lens, the tunable filter operable to select a wavelength [Fig. 2, 3, 6; para. 0093: ‘implementation of a tunable filter … to acquire images a different wavelengths’] or intensity or a range of wavelengths or intensities of the light beam.
Cline, Levene and Axelrod are combinable because they are from the same field of multimodal endoscope.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Cline, Levene and Axelrod as motivation to include a tunable filter to provide real-time imaging [Cline: Abstract].
Regarding claim 3, Cline meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 2.
Cline does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The multimodal microscopy system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the tunable filter is a liquid crystal tunable filter or an acousto-optic tunable filter, and the tunable filter is free from having moving parts.
However in the same field of endeavor Axelrod discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the tunable filter is a liquid crystal tunable filter [para. 0011: ‘liquid-crystal tunable filters (LCTFs)’] or an acousto-optic tunable filter, and the tunable filter is free from having moving parts [para. 0030: ‘switching between modalities in real-time without remove the inserted endoscope from the body’].
a tunable filter [Fig. 2, 3, 6; para. 0090: ‘a tunable filter’] optically coupled to the objective lens, the tunable filter operable to select a wavelength [Fig. 2, 3, 6; para. 0093: ‘implementation of a tunable filter … to acquire images a different wavelengths’] or intensity or a range of wavelengths or intensities of the light beam.
Cline, Levene and Axelrod are combinable because they are from the same field of multimodal endoscope.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Cline, Levene and Axelrod as motivation to include a tunable filter to provide real-time imaging [Cline: Abstract].
Claims 12-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cline in view of Levene in further view of Axelrod in further view of Lee et al. (“Lee”) [US 2019/0383982 A1]
Regarding claim 12, Cline meets the claim limitations as follows:
The multimodal microscopy system as claimed in claim 2,
wherein the illumination module (i.e. ‘36’) [Fig. 1, 2; para. 0029: ‘Broadband white illumination light’] comprises: a broadband or narrowband light source [para. 0029: ‘fluorescence excitation light (typically at 437 nm+10nm)’] for providing the light beam, the illumination module being configured to operate in a reflection mode [Fig. 6 shows ‘endoscope input’ as a reflection mode; para. 0029: ‘Reflected white light or autofluorescence light’] and to provide internal illumination (i.e. ‘36’) [Fig. 1, 2; para. 0029: ‘Broadband white illumination light’] when the plurality of imaging modalities is switched (e.g. ‘mirror 190’) [Fig. 6; para. 0003-0004] to endoscopic microscopy (i.e. a broadband light or a narrowband light’ [in light of claim 10: ‘switched to endoscopic microscopy’]) [Fig. 6: filters 1, 2; para. 0004, 0015, 0029, 0033, 0060: ‘Broadband white .. or fluorescence excitation light (typically at 437nm+10nm)’; ‘a blue fluorescence excitation light filter’; ‘When in the imaging system is in fluorescence imaging mode’. Note: the illumination modules in fluorescent microscopy and in endoscopic microscopy have the same scope of light characteristics “broadband or narrowband light source” (in view of claims 6 and 10). Thus, the fluorescent microscopy and in endoscopic microscopy are construed to be the same type of microscopy]; and
a fiber probe [Fig. 1: ‘fiberoptic endoscope’; para. 0029: ‘an illumination guide 38’] comprising at least one optical fiber having a proximal end (i.e. 40’) [para. 0029] optically coupled to the broadband or narrowband light source (i.e. ‘36’) [Fig. 1, 2; para. 0029: ‘Broadband white illumination light’], and a distal end opposite to the proximal end, the distal end having a metasurface through which the light beam is to be directed above and onto the sample.
Cline does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
a fiber probe comprising at least one optical fiber having a proximal end optically coupled to the broadband or narrowband light source, and a distal end opposite to the proximal end, the distal end having a metasurface through which the light beam is to be directed above and onto the sample.
However in the same field of endeavor Axelrod discloses the deficient claim as follows:
a fiber probe [Fig. 1, 2, 3 ] comprising at least one optical fiber [Fig. 2: ‘Fiber’] having a proximal end optically coupled to the broadband or narrowband light source, and a distal end [Fig. 1, 2, 5: Endoscopic Head ] opposite to the proximal end, the distal end having a metasurface through which the light beam is to be directed above and onto the sample.
Cline, Levene and Axelrod are combinable because they are from the same field of multimodal endoscope.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Cline, Levene and Axelrod as motivation to include a tunable filter to provide real-time imaging [Cline: Abstract].
Axelrod does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
a distal end opposite to the proximal end, the distal end having a metasurface through which the light beam is to be directed above and onto the sample.
However in the same field of endeavor Lee discloses the deficient claim as follows:
a distal end opposite to the proximal end, the distal end having a metasurface [Fig. 1; para. 0044, 0083: ‘A metasurface 8 can be formed on the optical fiber 2’] through which the light beam is to be directed above and onto the sample.
Cline, Levene, Axelrod, and Lee are combinable because they are from the same field of endoscope.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Cline, Levene, Axelrod, and Lee as motivation to include a metasurface on the optical fiber for practical applications in optical imaging and sensing, optical communications, high power lasers, beam steering, color filters, and other applications [Lee: Abstract].
Regarding claim 13, Cline in view of Axelrod and Lee meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 12.
Cline does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The multimodal microscopy system as claimed in claim 12, wherein the fiber probe further comprises a collection probe having a proximal end optically coupled to the objective lens, and a distal end opposite to the proximal end, the distal end through which the light beam from the sample is to be received via the detection path.
However in the same field of endeavor Axelrod discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the fiber probe further comprises a collection probe having a proximal end optically coupled to the objective lens [para. 0077, 0088: objective lens], and a distal end opposite to the proximal end, the distal end through which the light beam from the sample is to be received via the detection path.
Cline, Levene, Axelrod, Swanson and Lee are combinable because they are from the same field of endoscope.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Cline, Levene, Axelrod, Swanson and Lee as motivation to include a metasurface on the optical fiber for practical applications in optical imaging and sensing, optical communications, high power lasers, beam steering, color filters, and other applications [Lee: Abstract].
Regarding claim 14, Cline in view of Axelrod and Lee meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 13.
Cline does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The multimodal microscopy system as claimed in claim 13, wherein the distal end of the collection probe is coupled to an optical component for focusing to facilitate non-contact imaging and on-axis focusing.
However in the same field of endeavor Axelrod discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the distal end [Fig. 2: ‘Endoscopic Head’] of the collection probe is coupled to an optical component [Fig. 2: ‘Variable Focus Lens’] for focusing to facilitate non-contact imaging and on-axis focusing.
Cline, Levene, Axelrod, Swanson and Lee are combinable because they are from the same field of endoscope.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Cline, Levene, Axelrod, Swanson and Lee as motivation to include a metasurface on the optical fiber for practical applications in optical imaging and sensing, optical communications, high power lasers, beam steering, color filters, and other applications [Lee: Abstract].
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cline in view of Levene in further view of Axelrod in further view of MacKinnon et al. (“MacKinnon”) [US 2005/0228231 A1]
Regarding claim 20, Cline and Axelrod meets the claim limitations as follows:
The multimodal microscopy system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the microscopy-adaptable camera is a monochrome complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor camera or a monochrome charged-coupled device camera [Cline: Fig. 1, 3, 6: CCD 44a, 44b; filters; para. 0014, 0029, 0040: CCD ‘44a, 44b’].
Neither Cline nor Levene nor Axelrod discloses explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the microscopy-adaptable camera is a monochrome complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor camera or a monochrome charged-coupled device camera.
However in the same field of endeavor MacKinnon discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the microscopy-adaptable camera is a monochrome complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor camera [para. 0003-0004] or a monochrome charged-coupled device camera [para. 0033-0004, 0007: ‘a single monochrome CCD’].
Cline, Levene, Axelrod and MacKinnon are combinable because they are from the same field of multimodal endoscope.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Cline [Fig. 6: CCD 44a, 44b; filters], Levene, Axelrod and MacKinnon as motivation to use a single monochrome CCD and filters [Cline: Fig. 6: CCD 44a, 44b; filters] for producing high quality images.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 4, it is 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 5, it is 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 6, it is 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 8, it is 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 9, it is 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 10, it is 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 11, it is 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 15, it is 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 16, it is 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 17, it is 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 19, it is 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 22, it is 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 23, it is 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.
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 PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. 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.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights