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 Amendment
The amendments to Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 10-17 in the preliminary amendment filed 6/21/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 6/21/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract is too long.
Abstract, line 3- ‘comprises’ should read ‘includes’
Abstract, line 6- ‘comprises’ should read ‘includes’
Abstract, line 8- ‘comprises’ should read ‘includes’
Abstract, line 10- ‘comprises’ should read ‘includes’
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 16 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.
Regarding Claim 16, the phrase "such as" (See lines 2-3) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 15-17, as best understood, are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peltie et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2011/0190639 A1).
Peltie et al. discloses an optical imaging system (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-7) comprising an optical imaging component (See for example 40, 41, 42, 51, 52 in Figure 1) comprising a first optical imaging sensor (See for example 52 in Figure 1) and a second optical imaging sensor (See for example 51 in Figure 1), the optical imaging component being suitable for imaging an object (See for example 1, 2 in Figure 1); an illumination system (See for example 20, 21, 30, 31 in Figure 1) for emitting light having a polarization (See for example Paragraphs 0075-0076, use of a polarizing filter for light traversing toward detector 52 in Figure 1) towards the object; a polarization filter (See for example Paragraphs 0075-0076, use of an analyzer for light traversing toward detector 52 in Figure 1) configured to block light having the polarization from arriving at the first optical imaging sensor; a processing system (See for example 60 in Figure 1; use of a processing unit or device, which necessarily would have one or more processors and one or more storage devices) comprising one or more processors and one or more storage devices, wherein the processing system is configured to obtain first imaging sensor data from the first optical imaging sensor and second imaging sensor data from the second optical imaging sensor, and generate a composite view based on the first imaging sensor data and based on the second imaging sensor data (See for example 51, 52, 60, 70 in Figure 1; Paragraphs 0061, 0075-0076). Peltie et al. further discloses the polarization filter is configured to filter out light having the polarization, so that specular reflections of the light emitted by the illumination system are omitted from a representation of the object in the first imaging sensor data (See for example 51, 52, 60, 70 in Figure 1; Paragraphs 0061, 0075-0076); the processing system is configured to generate a display signal for a display device of the optical imaging system, the display signal being based on the composite view (See for example 60, 70 in Figure 1; Paragraphs 0061, 0075-0076); and the optical imaging system is a microscope system (See for example Figure 1).
Peltie et al. additionally discloses a method for an optical imaging system (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-7), the method comprising emitting light (See for example 20, 21, 30, 31 in Figure 1) having a polarization (See for example Paragraphs 0075-0076, use of a polarizing filter for light traversing toward detector 52 in Figure 1) towards an object (See for example 1, 2 in Figure 1); blocking light having the polarization (See for example Paragraphs 0075-0076, use of an analyzer for light traversing toward detector 52 in Figure 1) from arriving at a first optical imaging sensor (See for example 52 in Figure 1) of an optical imaging component (See for example 40, 41, 42, 51, 52 in Figure 1) being used to image the object; obtaining first imaging sensor data from the first optical imaging sensor and second imaging sensor data from a second optical imaging sensor (See for example 51 in Figure 1) of the optical imaging component (See for example 51, 52, 60, 70 in Figure 1; Paragraphs 0061, 0075-0076); and generating a composite view based on the first imaging sensor data and based on the second imaging sensor data (See for example 51, 52, 60, 70 in Figure 1; Paragraphs 0061, 0075-0076).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-14 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an optical imaging system as generally set forth in Claims 1, 3, the system including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1, 3, the second imaging sensor data comprises a representation of specular reflections of the light emitted by the illumination system, as reflected by the object. Claim 4 is dependent on Claim 3, and hence is allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 3 is allowable.
Claim 5 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an optical imaging system as generally set forth in Claims 1, 5, the system including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1, 5, the illumination system comprises a first light source and a second light source, with the first light source being configured to emit light in a first wavelength spectrum and the second light source being configured to emit light in a second wavelength spectrum, the first optical imaging sensor being configured to sense light in the first wavelength spectrum and the second optical imaging sensor being configured to sense light in the second wavelength spectrum, the first wavelength spectrum being non-overlapping with the second wavelength spectrum. Claim 6 is dependent on Claim 5, and hence is allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 5 is allowable.
Claim 7 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an optical imaging system as generally set forth in Claims 1, 7, the system including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1, 7, the second optical imaging sensor is configured to independently sense light in two or more mutually separated wavelength bands, wherein the illumination system comprises two or more spatially separated light sources being configured to emit light in the two or more wavelength bands towards the object from two or more different directions. Claims 8-11 are dependent on Claim 7, and hence is allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 7 is allowable.
Claim 12 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an optical imaging system as generally set forth in Claims 1, 12, the system including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1, 12, a second polarization filter configured to admit light having the polarization to the second optical imaging sensor.
Claim 13 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an optical imaging system as generally set forth in Claims 1, 13, the system including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1, 13, the second optical imaging sensor is included in the optical imaging component without a polarization filter, wherein the processing system is configured to generate a representation of specular reflections shown in the second imaging sensor data based on a saturation of pixels of the second imaging sensor data caused by the specular reflections.
Claim 14 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an optical imaging system as generally set forth in Claims 1, 14, the system including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1, 14, the processing system is configured to generate the composite view in a first mode of operation, and to generate a second composite view that is based on reflectance imaging and fluorescence imaging in a second mode of operation, with the processing system being configured to use the first optical imaging sensor to perform the reflectance imaging and to use the second optical imaging sensor to perform the fluorescence imaging in the second mode of operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 9546905 to Han et al.- Optical device for measuring specular and diffuse reflect light from a sample.
U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2018/0238794 A1 to Kangas et al.- Reference-based non-contact sensing of substances utilizing a light source, detector, reference path, and controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Group Art Unit 2872
5/28/2026
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights