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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-8, 10-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MITSU et al (JP 2017183280 A) in view of LIPPERT et al. (US 20150153560 A1).
Regarding claim 1, MITSU discloses a method of preparing a sample (fig. 1, S), comprising:
irradiating (via 13) (pgs. 8-9) a sample (S) held by a sample stage along a first axis (of 13) relative to the sample with a light beam and acquiring at least a first sample image (via 13) (pgs. 8-9);
irradiating (via 13) (pgs. 8-9) the sample along a
determining (via 13) (pgs. 8-9) a location of a region of interest (ROI) within the sample (abstract) (pgs. 8-9) based on the first sample image and the second sample image (pgs. 8-9); and
milling (via FIB 11) the sample held by the sample stage based on the location of the ROI (pgs. 8-9)
(fig. 1; optical microscope 13, FIB 11, EM 12, SE detector 20; sample S, XYZ stage 15)
(abstract)
(pgs. 8-9 and 11).
But MITSU fails to disclose irradiating the sample along a second axis.
LIPPERT, however, discloses microscopic recording of image stacks of a sample from various orientation angles (from first, second and/or third axes) for imaging a sample’s ROI (abstract) (figs. 2-4) [0003-0005] [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MITSU , with first and second axis imaging, as taught by LIPPERT, to use in order to receive a spatial impression of the sample [0003] and to allow spatially extended objects to be acquired in the form of optical sections, wherein the advantages consist above all in the speed, the low level of fading of the sample as well as a broadened penetration depth [0005].
Regarding claim 17, MITSU discloses a microscopy system (fig. 1, 10), comprising:
a sample chamber (14);
a sample stage (15) positioned in the sample chamber;
a light source (via 13) for generating a light beam;
a detector (of 13, and/or 20);
a controller (fig. 1, 26, 17, 16, 18, 24, 25, 27, 19) including a processor and a non-transitory memory for storing computer readable instructions, by executing the computer readable instructions in the processor, the microscopy system is configured to:
irradiate (via 13) (pgs. 8-9) a sample (S) held by the sample stage along a first axis (of 13) relative to the sample with the light beam and acquire at least a first sample image via the detector (via 13) (pgs. 8-9);
irradiate (via 13) (pgs. 8-9) the sample along a
determine (via 13) (pgs. 8-9) a location of a region of interest (ROI) within the sample (abstract) (pgs. 8-9) based on the first sample image and the second sample image (pgs. 8-9); and
mill (via FIB 11) the sample held by the sample stage based on the location of the ROI (pgs. 8-9)
(fig. 1; optical microscope 13, FIB 11, EM 12, SE detector 20; sample S, XYZ stage 15)
(abstract)
(pgs. 8-9 and 11).
But MITSU fails to disclose irradiating the sample along a second axis.
LIPPERT, however, discloses microscopic recording of image stacks of a sample from various orientation angles (from first, second and/or third axes) for imaging a sample’s ROI (abstract) (figs. 2-4) [0003-0005] [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MITSU , with first and second axis imaging, as taught by LIPPERT, to use in order to receive a spatial impression of the sample [0003] and to allow spatially extended objects to be acquired in the form of optical sections, wherein the advantages consist above all in the speed, the low level of fading of the sample as well as a broadened penetration depth [0005].
Regarding claim 2, MITSU discloses that determining the location of the ROI based on the first sample image and the second sample image includes:
determining first coordinates of the ROI in the first sample image (abstract) (pgs. 8-9);
determining second coordinates of the ROI in the second sample image (abstract) (pgs. 8-9); and
determining the location of the ROI based on the first coordinates and the second coordinates (abstract) (pgs. 8-9 and 11).
Regarding claim 3, MITSU discloses that wherein the first coordinates and the second coordinates (abstract) (pgs. 8-9) are coordinates corresponding to the sample stage (pg. 5).
Regarding claim 4-5, MITSU discloses wherein the first sample image and the second sample image are
determining the location of the ROI based on an intensity of the
But MITSU fails to disclose fluorescent images.
LIPPERT, however, discloses microscopic recording of image stacks of a sample from various orientation angles via taking fluorescent images [0003-0005] [0050] for imaging a ROI (abstract) (figs. 2-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of MITSU , with fluorescent imaging, as taught by LIPPERT, to use in order to receive a spatial impression of the sample [0003] and to allow spatially extended objects to be acquired in the form of optical sections, wherein the advantages consist above all in the speed, the low level of fading of the sample as well as a broadened penetration depth [0005].
Regarding claim 6, MITSU discloses irradiating the sample along a
Regarding claim 7, MITSU discloses that wherein determining the location of the ROI based on the first sample image and the second sample image includes determining the location of the ROI (via 13) (abstract) (pgs. 8-9) based on orientations of the first axis (of 13) and the
But MITSU fails to disclose determining the location of the ROI based on orientations of the first axis and the second axis .
LIPPERT, however, discloses microscopic recording of image stacks of a sample ROI from various orientation angles (from first, second and/or third axes) for imaging a sample’s ROI/ determining the location of the ROI based on orientations of the first axis and the second axis (abstract) (figs. 2-4) [0003-0005] [0050]; and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Regarding claim 8, MITSU discloses acquiring at least a charged particle image (via SEM 12) (pg. 11) of the sample, and determining the location of the ROI further based on the charged particle image (pg. 11).
Regarding claim 10, MITSU discloses that milling (via FIB 11) (pg. 11) the sample held by the sample stage (15) based on the location of the ROI includes determining a milling angle (inherent for 12 to accurately irradiate S) based on the location of the ROI (of S) (pg. 11).
(pgs. 8-9 and 11).
Regarding claim 11, MITSU discloses that the sample is milled with a first charged particle beam (via FIB 11) (pg. 11)
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 12, LIPPERT discloses tilting (fig. 2; 2 at angles a1-a2; relative to imager 5) [0006-0007] [0017] [0020] [0026-0027] [0044] the sample (2) by actuating the sample stage (supporting 2) between irradiating the sample along the first axis and irradiating the sample along the second axis [0006-0007] [0017] [0020] [0026-0027] (abstract) (figs. 2-4) [0003-0005] [0050]; and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 13, LIPPERT discloses wherein a first angle between the first axis (of 2 to imager 5) and a normal of the sample stage (supporting 2) and the second angle between the second axis (of 2 to imager 5) and the normal of the sample stage is the same (fig. 2; sample 2 is rotated/tilted relative to 5, and not necessarily the stage is tilted relative to the imager 5) .; and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Regarding claim 14, MITSU discloses that determining the location the ROI within the sample based on the first sample image and the second sample image includes merging the first image and the second image (pg. 8-9) and determining the location of the ROI in the merged image (pg. 8-9 Note synthesized image).
Regarding claim 16, MITSU discloses that wherein irradiating (via 13) the sample along the first axis (of 13) relative to the sample with the light beam and acquiring at least the first sample image includes acquiring multiple sample images at different imaging depths (pgs. 8-9) with the light beam irradiated at the first axis,
wherein irradiating (via 13) the sample along the
wherein determining the location of the ROI (in S) based on the first sample image and the second sample image includes determining the location of the ROI based on the multiple sample images (pgs. 8-9) acquired with the light beam irradiated along the first axis (of 13) and the multiple sample images (pgs. 8-9) acquired with the light beam irradiated along the
But MITSU fails to disclose irradiating the sample along a second axis.
LIPPERT, however, discloses microscopic recording of image stacks of a sample from various orientation angles (from first, second and/or third axes) for imaging a sample’s ROI (abstract) (figs. 2-4) [0003-0005] [0050]; and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Regarding claim 18, MITSU discloses that a first charged particle source (FIB 11) for generating a first charged particle beam and a second particle source (SEM 12) for generating a second charged particle beam (pgs. 10-11), and
the microscopy system is further configured to: acquire an image of the ROI with the second charged particle beam (of 12) after milling (via FIB 11) the sample with the first charged particle beam (FIB 11) (pgs. 10-11).
Regarding claim 19, MITSU discloses that wherein the microscopy system is further configured to: acquire a third sample image by irradiating the milled sample with the light beam (of 13) (pgs. 8-9 and 10-11) (pgs. 17-18)..; update the location of the ROI based on the third sample image (pgs. 10-11 and 17-18).; and mill (via FIB 11) (pgs. 10-11 and 17-18). the sample based on the updated location of the ROI (pgs. 10-11 and 17-18).
Regarding claim 20, MITSU discloses that an actuator for actuating the sample stage (pg. 5 Note XYZ tiltable stage), and the microscopy system is further configured to tilt (pg. 5 Note XYZ tiltable stage) the sample to irradiate the sample along the
But MITSU fails to disclose irradiating the sample along a second axis.
LIPPERT, however, discloses microscopic recording of image stacks of a sample from various orientation angles (from first, second and/or third axes) for imaging a sample’s ROI (abstract) (figs. 2-4) [0003-0005] [0050] and changing relative tilt between a sample (2) and imager (5) (fig. 2; 2 from a1-a2 relative to 5); and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
2. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MITSU et al (JP 2017183280 A) in view of LIPPERT et al. (US 20150153560 A1); hereinafter “the combined references”, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in light of BONNER et al. (WO 2015199976 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 9, MITSU discloses wherein determining the location of the ROI within the sample based on the first sample image and the second sample image includes determining a relative location of the ROI relative to a based on one or more of the first sample image (pg. 11)., the second sample image (pg. 11)., and the charged particle image (pg. 11).; and determining the location of the ROI based on the relative location (pgs. 8-9 and 11)..
But the combined references fail to disclose determining a relative location of the ROI relative to a fiducial
BONNER, however, discloses determining a relative location of the ROI relative to a fiducial (pg. 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine/modify the invention of the combined references, with using fiducials for ROI alignment, as taught by BONNER, to use a fiducial in adding ROI alignment of a sample (pg. 36).
2. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MITSU et al (JP 2017183280 A) in view of LIPPERT et al. (US 20150153560 A1); hereinafter “the combined references”, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in light of MILLER (EP 2492950 B1).
Regarding claim(s) 15, MITSU discloses wherein the sample is a
But the combined references fail to disclose sample is a frozen biological sample, and the milled sample is a lamella to be analyzed in a transmission electron microscope
MILLER, however, discloses milling and imaging frozen biological sample, and the milled sample is a lamella to be analyzed in a transmission electron microscope [0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine/modify the invention of the combined references, with a frozen biological sample, and the milled sample is a lamella analyzed in a transmission electron microscope, as taught by MILLER, to use as a substitution of one known sample type (frozen biologic) for another to obtain predictable TEM imaging results thereof for use in some applications that require precise milling and imaging [0003].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Smyth whose telephone number is 571-270-1746. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00AM - 6:00PM; Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272-2328. 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.
/ANDREW SMYTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights