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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-12, 16-18, 20, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Putman et al. WO 2019/178241, from hereinafter “Putman”).
Regarding claim 1, Putman teaches a method, comprising: generating a modulated light pattern using a light modulator (55, focusing pattern is result of modulation); transmitting the modulated light pattern through an objective lens (objective lens 25) to a surface of a substrate (S), wherein the objective lens defines an object plane; obtaining a plurality of images(at 2 ore more Z positions, paragraph 58, Figure 5,) of the modulated light pattern reflected (see Figure 1, the detectors 70 and 5 receive light reflected from substrate S) from a surface of a substrate, wherein each modulated light pattern is obtained at a different relative distance (Z positions, paragraph 58) between the objective lens and the substrate surface; analyzing the plurality of images (Calculate the relative sharpness of the resulting images, paragraph 58) to determine a reference location (130) of the substrate surface relative to the objective lens that corresponds to positioning of an image of the modulated light pattern formed by the objective lens at the object plane; and adjusting a position of the substrate (move stage 30..until in focus, see paragraph 76) relative to the objective lens based on the reference location (see Figures 1-2, paragraphs 58-63, 76-79).
Regarding claim 16, Putman teaches a system, comprising: an illumination source (40); an objective lens (25); a light modulator (55); a detector (70); a stage (30); and a controller (108) connected to the illumination source, the detector, and the stage, wherein the objective lens defines an object plane of the system; (see Figures 2 and 4, paragraph 29), and wherein the controller is configured to activate the illumination source to generate illumination light and direct the illumination light to the light modulator to generate a modulated light pattern; activate the stage to position a surface of a substrate on the stage at a plurality of different distances relative to the objective lens; activate the detector to obtain images of the modulated light pattern at the detector corresponding to each of the plurality of different distances; analyze the images to determine a reference location of the substrate surface relative to the objective lens that corresponds to positioning of an image of the modulated light pattern formed by the objective lens at the object plane; and activate the stage to adjust a position of the substrate relative to the objective lens based on the reference location (see Figures 2 and 4, paragraphs 29 and 58).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 17-18, Putman teaches wherein the substrate comprises a coverslip that overlies a biological sample or a slide that supports a biological sample (see paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 5, Putman teaches that the illumination source 40 generates illumination light that is transmitted through the light modulator 55 (see Figure 2).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Putman teaches a passive modulator (see paragraph 27).
Regarding claims 9 and 23-24, Putman teaches a detector at imaging plane (camera 70 or imaging camera 5) (see paragraphs 42 and 76).
Regarding claims 10 and 25, Putman teaches that the infinite-conjugate objective lens follows from infinity space (see paragraph 43).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 26-27, Putman teaches that the controller is configured to analyze the images by identifying an image among the images in which the modulated light patter is in best focus when it is taught that "in focus", "perfect or optimal focus" is obtained at the reference location (130) which corresponds to in focus/ best focus; paragraph [0059]).
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) 4, 8, 13-15, 19, 22, 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putman.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Putman fails to specifically disclose that the biological sample in paragraph 62 is a tissue sample. Although Putman fails to specifically disclose tissue, there is a biological sample in paragraph 62 and it is notoriously well known that biological samples can be tissues, hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the biological sample and have it be a tissue that is being tested since that is a common example and able to be tested with the instant invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 22, although Putman fails to specifically teach that the passive modulator comprises a reticle, Putman does teach the use of a passive modulator in paragraph 27, which it is well known in the art to use a reticle pattern of alternating clear and opaque sections for use in the modulator. Therefore, 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 reticle for enhanced modulation and therefore a more efficient system.
Regarding claims 13 and 28, although Putman fails to specifically teach determining the reference location comprises interpolating between locations of the substrate surface relative to the objective lens for which the identified images were obtained, Putman does teach in Figure 5 using discrete measurement points to find a maximum of a curve using general knowledge in the art (see paragraph 59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize common mathematical knowledge and practices as taught by Putnam and data points obtained to identifying the images with the best focus.
Regarding claims 14-15 and 29-30, although Putnam does not specifically teach adjusting the substrate position so that a biological sample positioned below or atop the substrate is located in the object plane, Putnam does teach a biological sample between a slide and a coverslip (see paragraph 62) which can be moved and positioned in a favorable way. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the sample into the object plane and obtaining an image because it is favorable to have the sample in a good position for imaging.
Claim(s) 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putman in view of Gershman et al. (USPGPUB 2018/0172972, from hereinafter “Gershman”).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Putman fails to specifically teach an active modulator.
Gershman teaches the use of active modulators, which is a common alternative to a passive modulator (see paragraph 97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an active modulator since it is well known in the art to employ active modulators for better signal strength and efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: USPGPUB 2004/0125373 to Oldenbourg et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA M CAPUTO whose telephone number is (571)272-2388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/LISA M CAPUTO/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights