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 .
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, see Pg. 6, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the interpretation of claims 1, 3-6, 9 and 10 under 35 USC 112(f) have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the interpretation of the claims. The interpretation of claims 1, 3-6, 9 and 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, see Pg. 6-7, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to claims 1-10 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims. The rejection of claims 1-10 has been withdrawn. Applicant has canceled claim 2.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 6-9, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Park et al. (KR 101855366 B1) in view of Li et al. (US 2020/0378745 A1). Applicant has canceled claim 2.
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 data acquisition unit” in claim 9, “a selection unit” in claim 9, “an evaluation unit” in claim 9.
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 § 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) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 101855366 B1) in view of Li et al. (US 2020/0378745 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a method for evaluating a refractive index distribution comprising:
acquiring refractive index distribution data of an observation object (201) (Fig. 1 and 2; [0047]; [0048]);
selecting whether or not an object included in the refractive index distribution data is an evaluation object (Fig. 1; [0050]); and
evaluating the refractive index distribution of the evaluation object (Fig. 1; [0051]), wherein the acquiring the refractive index distribution data of the observation object includes:
acquiring, for each of a plurality of light irradiation directions, an interference intensity image generated by interference between light irradiating the evaluation object along each of the plurality of light irradiation directions and passed through the evaluation object and reference light ([0048]; [0061]-[0063]);
generating, for each of the plurality of light irradiation directions, a complex amplitude image at each of a plurality of positions based on the interference intensity image ([0061]-[0063]);
calculating a refractive index distribution based on the two-dimensional phase image at each of the plurality of positions ([0061]-[0063]).
Park does not explicitly disclose correcting a phase of the complex amplitude image of each of the plurality of light irradiation directions based on the light irradiation direction for each of the plurality of positions, and generating a complex amplitude summation image representing a summation of the complex amplitude images after the correction;
generating a two-dimensional phase image based on the complex amplitude summation image for each of the plurality of positions.
However, Li, in the same field of endeavor of non-destructive and quantitative imaging systems and methods, discloses a method for correcting a phase of a complex amplitude image of each of a plurality of light irradiation directions based on the light irradiation direction for each of a plurality of positions, and generating a complex amplitude summation image representing a summation of the complex amplitude images after the correction ([0039], last 5 lines; [0040]-[0043]);
generating a two-dimensional phase image based on the complex amplitude summation image for each of the plurality of positions ([0035]; [0038]; [0039], last 5; [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Park with a method which corrects the phase of a complex amplitude image where the motivation would be to overcome nonlinearities introduced in the measurement field by multiple scattering, improving the accuracy of non-destructive imaging methods (Li: [0039], lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Li discloses the evaluation method according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein selecting whether or not the object included in the refractive index distribution data is the evaluation object includes:
acquiring at least one refractive index cross sectional data in a certain direction from the refractive index distribution data (Park: [0070]; [0074], last 5 lines); and
selecting whether or not an object included in the refractive index cross sectional data is an evaluation object (Park: [0075]).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Li discloses the evaluation method according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein
evaluating the refractive index distribution of the evaluation object includes:
extracting a region having a refractive index greater than or less than a threshold (Park: [0075]).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Li discloses the evaluation method according to claim 4, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein evaluating the refractive index distribution of the evaluation object includes:
dividing the region by its shape, its size, its density or its position in the observation object (Park: [0070]; [0075]).
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Li discloses the evaluation method according to claim 4, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein evaluating the refractive index distribution of the evaluation object includes:
specifying one or more positions in the evaluation object and dividing the evaluation object into a region present at a predetermined distance from the position and a region present at a distance farther than the predetermined distance from the position (Park: [0042]; [0075]; [0091]).
Regarding claim 7, Park in view Li discloses the evaluation method according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the observation object is a three-dimensional culture (Park: [0043]).
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Li discloses the evaluation method according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein
the refractive index distribution data includes:
at least one refractive index data selected from the group consisting of a lipid droplet, a mitochondrion, a vesicle, a nucleolus and DNA (Park: [0013]).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses an apparatus for evaluating a refractive index distribution comprising:
a data acquisition unit (210) for acquiring refractive index distribution data of an observation object (201) (Fig. 1 and 2; [0047]; [0048]);
a selection unit (220) for obtaining an indicator for an object included in the refractive index distribution data from the refractive index distribution data and selecting whether or not the object is an evaluation object based on the indicator (Fig. 1; [0050]); and
an evaluation unit (230) for evaluating the refractive index distribution of the evaluation object (Fig. 1; [0051]), wherein the data acquisition unit is configured to:
acquire, for each of a plurality of light irradiation directions, an interference intensity image generated by interference between light irradiating the evaluation object along each of the plurality of light irradiation directions and passed through the evaluation object and reference light ([0048]; [0061]-[0063]);
generate, for each of the plurality of light irradiation directions, a complex amplitude image at each of a plurality of positions based on the interference intensity image ([0061]-[0063]);
calculate a refractive index distribution based on the two-dimensional phase image at each of the plurality of positions ([0061]-[0063]).
Park does not explicitly disclose a system which corrects a phase of the complex amplitude image of each of the plurality of light irradiation directions based on the light irradiation direction for each of the plurality of positions, and generating a complex amplitude summation image representing a summation of the complex amplitude images after the correction;
generates a two-dimensional phase image based on the complex amplitude summation image for each of the plurality of positions.
However, Li, in the same field of endeavor of non-destructive and quantitative imaging systems and methods, discloses a system which corrects a phase of a complex amplitude image of each of a plurality of light irradiation directions based on the light irradiation direction for each of a plurality of positions, and generating a complex amplitude summation image representing a summation of the complex amplitude images after the correction ([0039], last 5 lines; [0040]-[0043]);
generates a two-dimensional phase image based on the complex amplitude summation image for each of the plurality of positions ([0035]; [0038]; [0039], last 5; [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Park with a method which corrects the phase of a complex amplitude image where the motivation would be to overcome nonlinearities introduced in the measurement field by multiple scattering, improving the accuracy of non-destructive imaging methods (Li: [0039], lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a method for evaluating a refractive index distribution, the method comprising:
acquiring refractive index distribution data of an observation object (201) (Fig. 1 and 2; [0047]; [0048]);
obtaining an indicator for an object included in the refractive index distribution data from the refractive index distribution data and selecting whether or not the object is an evaluation object based on the indicator (Fig. 1; [0050]); and
evaluating the refractive index distribution of the evaluation object (Fig. 1; [0051])z
wherein acquiring the refractive index distribution data of the observation object includes:
acquiring, for each of a plurality of light irradiation directions, an interference intensity image generated by interference between light irradiating the evaluation object along each of the plurality of light irradiation directions and passed through the evaluation object and reference light ([0048]; [0061]-[0063]);
generating, for each of the plurality of light irradiation directions, a complex amplitude image at each of a plurality of positions based on the interference intensity image ([0061]-[0063]);
calculating a refractive index distribution based on the two-dimensional phase image at each of the plurality of positions ([0061]-[0063]).
Park does not explicitly disclose correcting a phase of the complex amplitude image of each of the plurality of light irradiation directions based on the light irradiation direction for each of the plurality of positions, and generating a complex amplitude summation image representing a summation of the complex amplitude images after the correction;
generating a two-dimensional phase image based on the complex amplitude summation image for each of the plurality of positions.
However, Li, in the same field of endeavor of non-destructive and quantitative imaging systems and methods, discloses a method for correcting a phase of a complex amplitude image of each of a plurality of light irradiation directions based on the light irradiation direction for each of a plurality of positions, and generating a complex amplitude summation image representing a summation of the complex amplitude images after the correction ([0039], last 5 lines; [0040]-[0043]);
generating a two-dimensional phase image based on the complex amplitude summation image for each of the plurality of positions ([0035]; [0038]; [0039], last 5; [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Park with a method which corrects the phase of a complex amplitude image where the motivation would be to overcome nonlinearities introduced in the measurement field by multiple scattering, improving the accuracy of non-destructive imaging methods (Li: [0039], lines 1-8).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MAHER YAZBACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/MAHER YAZBACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights