DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 6/3/2024.
Claims 1-14 and 16 have been submitted for examination.
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 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 makes several recitations of “a parameter” and “a parameter group”. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends each recitation to be different or one in the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the fluorophore widgets", “the second widget zone”, and “the first widget zone”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner believes that while claim 12 currently depends on claim 10, Applicant intended the dependence to be that of claim 11 as this would alleviate the antecedent basis issues and shall be interpreted as such for purposes of examination.
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) 1-5, 9, 13, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (US 2013/0027538), hereinafter Ding, in view of Tam et al. (US 2014/0340499), hereinafter Tam.
As per claim 1, Ding teaches the following:
a microscope control arrangement comprising:
one or more processors, (see Fig. 2, 125), and
one or more storage devices, (see Fig. 2, 140),
wherein the one or more processors are configured to render a graphical user interface on a display device, the graphical user interface including control widgets configured to receive user inputs. See paragraph [0063] and corresponding GUI shown in Fig. 4,
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to translate the user inputs to the control widgets into at least one of an illumination setting or a detection setting . As Ding teaches in paragraph [0063], and corresponding Fig. 4, light control window 450 is shown for setting illumination. Ding further teaches in paragraph [0063], elements 405 are utilized for setting focus (detection setting).
However, Ding does not explicitly teach of illuminations settings dependent upon an operation mode. In a similar field of endeavor, Tam teaches of a method of controlling a microscope with illuminations (see abstract). As Tam further teaches in paragraph [0022], and corresponding Fig. 3, a user may control both a mode selection and corresponding illumination settings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the settings of Ding with the mode selection of Tam. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Tam teaches in paragraph [0002], allowing the user to adjust focal length and illumination parameters was a well known technique, and would thus benefit the user in accessing each setting from a single interface.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ding teaches the arrangement of claim 1 as described above. Ding in view of Tam further teaches the following:
the control widgets are configured to provide a common user interaction mode for the at least one of the illumination setting and the detection setting regardless of the microscopy operating mode selected from the plurality of microscopy operation modes. As Ding shows in Figs. 4 and 5, the illumination settings remain as a “common interaction mode” regardless of how the interface view is manipulated. Therefore, upon the modification of Ding in view of Tam, a user would be able to change the mode of Tam while maintaining the common illumination elements of Ding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the settings of Ding with the mode selection of Tam. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Tam teaches in paragraph [0002], allowing the user to adjust focal length and illumination parameters was a well known technique, and would thus benefit the user in accessing each setting from a single interface.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ding teaches the arrangement of claim 1 as described above. However, as described above, Ding does not explicitly teach of switching operation modes. Tam teaches the following:
the graphical user interface further includes one or more switching widgets configured to change a selection between the plurality of microscopy operation modes. As Tam teaches in paragraph [0022], “the set of exposure controls 302 can include…..imaging modes such as pan or zoom”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the settings of Ding with the mode selection of Tam. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Tam teaches in paragraph [0002], allowing the user to adjust focal length and illumination parameters was a well known technique, and would thus benefit the user in accessing each setting from a single interface.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ding teaches the arrangement of claim 1 as described above. However, as described above, Ding does not explicitly teach of switching operation modes. Tam teaches the following:
the plurality of microscopy operation modes include a wide-field operation mode and a confocal operation mode. As Tam teaches in paragraph [0022], “the set of exposure controls 302 can include…..imaging modes such as pan or zoom”. The examiner interprets the zooming of Tam to encompass Applicant’s limitation in that a “wide-field operation mode” is seen as an overall view and a “confocal operation mode” to be that of a zoomed in view.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the settings of Ding with the mode selection of Tam. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Tam teaches in paragraph [0002], allowing the user to adjust focal length and illumination parameters was a well known technique, and would thus benefit the user in accessing each setting from a single interface.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ding teaches the arrangement of claim 1 as described above. However, as described above, Ding does not explicitly teach of the different widgets of claim 5. Tam teaches the following:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to translate at least one of:
a first user input to a first widget or a first widget group of the control widgets indicating an imaging time into a parameter or a parameter group defining a detector exposure time in the wide-field operation mode or into a parameter or a parameter group defining a scan speed in the confocal operation mode,
a second user input to a second widget or a second widget group of the control widgets indicating field of view into a parameter or a parameter group defining a detector crop in the wide-field operation mode or into a parameter or a parameter group defining a scanned region in the confocal operation mode, and/or
a third user input to a third widget or a third widget group of the control widgets indicating an image resolution to a parameter or a parameter group defining a detector binning in the wide-field operation mode or to a parameter or a parameter group defining a scan resolution in the confocal operation mode. As Tam teaches in paragraph [0022], the controls 302 of Fig. 3 are for setting parameters of exposure. Tam further teaches in claim 7 of the set of imaging parameters comprising a resolution setting.
Regarding claim 9, modified Ding teaches the arrangement of claim 1 as described above. Ding further teaches the following:
wherein the control arrangement is configured to render graphical user interface further includes an overlay of images obtained in each of the plurality of microscope operation modes, and the one or more processors are configured to adjust a resolution of the overlay or of each of the images. As Ding teaches in paragraph [0063], and corresponding Fig. 4, focus navigation interface 404 has a plurality of regional focus elements (overlay). Ding describes in paragraphs [0055] and [0056] how each region may be described as how the region is in focus (adjusted resolution).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ding teaches the arrangement of claim 1 as described above. Ding further teaches the following:
a microscope system comprising a fluorescence microscope and a microscope control arrangement according to claim 1. See Fig. 2.
As per claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 16, modified Ding teaches the method of claim 14 as described above. Ding further teaches of a non-transitory computer-readable medium in Fig. 2, 140
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Tam as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Morizono (US 6,337,474).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ding teaches the arrangement of claim 4 as described above. However, Ding does not explicitly teach of activating certain components based upon mode. In a similar field of endeavor, Morizono is directed to controlling a microscope (see abstract). Morizono further teaches the following:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, when a selection between the wide-field operation mode and the confocal operation mode is changed, provide activation commands and deactivation commands configured to activate and deactivate different groups of components of a fluorescence microscope used in either of these the wide-field operation modes are provided by the microscope control arrangement mode or the confocal operation mode. As Morizono teaches in column 5, lines 9-14, the scanning microscope may operate in one of three modes, including an area search mode (wide-area) and a confocal image mode. Morizono then describes in column 5, lines 14-39, that different components are activated/deactivated based upon the selected mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the modes of Ding in view of Tam with the activation/deactivation of Morizono. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Morizono teaches in column 1, lines 9-23, utilizing the area and confocal modes of a microscope was known at the time, wherein each mode would require different components of the microscope.
Regarding claim 7, modified Ding teaches the arrangement of claim 6 as described above. However, as described above, Ding does not explicitly teach of activating certain components based upon mode. Morizono further teaches the following:
the activation commands are configured to activate at least one of a wide-field detection unit and/or a wide-field illumination unit when switching from the confocal operation mode to the wide-field operation mode, and to activate at least one of a confocal detection unit, a confocal illumination unit and/or an X/Y scanner when switching from the wide-field operation mode to the confocal operation mode. As Morizono teaches in column 5, lines 14-26, upon activating an area search mode, a CCD drive circuit is activated. As Morizono teaches in column 5, lines 27-30, upon activating a confocal image mode, a two-dimensional scanner is activated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the modes of Ding in view of Tam with the activation/deactivation of Morizono. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Morizono teaches in column 1, lines 9-23, utilizing the area and confocal modes of a microscope was known at the time, wherein each mode would require different components of the microscope.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ding teaches the arrangement of claim 6 as described above. However, as described above, Ding does not explicitly teach of activating certain components based upon mode. Morizono further teaches the following:
the deactivation commands are configured to deactivate at least one of a wide- field detection unit and/or a wide-field illumination unit when switching from the wide-field operation mode to the confocal operation mode, and to deactivate at least one of a confocal detection unit, a confocal illumination unit and/or an X/Y scanner when switching from the confocal operation mode to the wide-field operation mode. As Morizono teaches in column 5, lines 14-26, upon activating an area search mode, a laser drive circuit is stopped. As Morizono teaches in column 5, lines 27-30, upon activating a confocal image mode, luminance signals stored in memory are output to a first circuit, i.e., the illumination is switched from wide to confocal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the modes of Ding in view of Tam with the activation/deactivation of Morizono. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Morizono teaches in column 1, lines 9-23, utilizing the area and confocal modes of a microscope was known at the time, wherein each mode would require different components of the microscope.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Tam as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schumann et al. (US 2023/0324662), with effective filing date of 8/5/2020, hereinafter Schumann.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ding teaches the arrangement of claim 1 as described above. However, Ding does not explicitly teach of fluorophores and deriving parameters. In a similar field of endeavor, Schumann teaches of a method of illumination for a microscope (see abstract). Schumann further teaches the following:
the one or more processors are configured to process fluorophore information indicating one or more fluorophores, and to derive control parameters for controlling at least an illumination intensity in each of the plurality of microscopy operation modes. As Schumann teaches in the abstract, illumination settings are adjusted based on a setpoint of a signal-to-noise ratio for fluorophores.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the modes of Ding in view of Tam with the adjustment based on fluorophores of Schumann. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Schumann teaches in paragraphs [0005] and [0006], such automatic adjustment benefits users in a more user-friendly experience.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Tam in view of Schumann as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of “Software Manual – Zeiss Zen 3.3 (blue edition)”, as submitted by Applicant, hereinafter Zeiss.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ding teaches the arrangement of claim 10 as described above. However, Ding does not explicitly teach of fluorophore widgets. Zeiss teaches the following:
the graphical user interface further includes one or more fluorophore widgets corresponding to the one or more fluorophores indicated by the fluorophore information, and each of the fluorophore widgets comprises a first widget zone and a second widget zone, the first widget zone providing a user feedback relating to the corresponding fluorophore and the second widget zone indicating the illumination intensity. As Zeiss shows on page 67, channels are interpreted as a “first widget zone” and sliders for illumination a “second widget zone”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the widgets of Ding in view of Tam with the adjustment widgets of Zeiss. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because Ding shows similar illumination sliders in Fig. 5 and the widgets of Zeiss would benefit a user of the modified system comprising the controls of Ding and fluorophores of Schumann.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Tam in view of Schumann in view of Zeiss as applied to claims 1, 10, and 11 above, and further in view of “Revolve Microscope Demo – Echo Laboratories Inc.”, as submitted by Applicant, hereinafter Revolve.
Regarding claim 12, modified Ding teaches the arrangement of claim 11 as described above. However, Ding does not explicitly teach of rim surrounded zone widgets. Revolve teaches the following:
in each of the fluorophore widgets, the second widget zone is rendered as a rim surrounding the first widget zone, a proportion of the rim being rendered differently from a remaining proportion of the rim in correspondence to the illumination intensity. As may be seen in minute 3:47 of Revolve (reproduced below), an illumination setting may be implemented as a rim of an inner zone.
PNG
media_image1.png
677
1064
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the widgets of Ding in view of Tam in view of Zeiss with the ring widgets of Revolve. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the widgets of Revolve provides the benefit of a slidable control requiring less horizontal space than a slider bar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Soenksen (US 6,711,283), see Fig. 5A.
-Huan (US 2019/0285867), see Fig. 8B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights