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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 1st, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 112842604, filed on March 29th, 2024.
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 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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“a laser source module” in claims 1. The laser source module will be interpreted to encompass the structure disclosed in paragraph [0120] or any equivalents thereof.
“an optical fiber module” in claim 1. The optical fiber module will be interpreted to encompass the structure disclosed in paragraph [0070] or any equivalents thereof.
“an imaging module” in claim 1. An imaging module will be interpreted to encompass the structure disclosed in paragraph [0079] or any equivalents thereof.
“A modulation module” in claims 1. An imaging module will be interpreted to encompass the structure disclosed in paragraph [0098] or any equivalents thereof.
“a control module” in claim 1. A control module will be interpreted to encompass the structure disclosed in paragraph [0156] or any equivalents thereof.
“A light regulation unit” in claim 2. A light regulation unit will be interpreted to encompass the structure disclosed in paragraph [0086] or [0089] or any equivalents thereof.
“A modulation unit” in claim 2. An imaging module will be interpreted to encompass the structure disclosed in paragraph [0086] or any equivalents thereof.
“a beam splitting unit” in claim 4. A beam splitting unit will be interpreted to encompass the structure disclosed in paragraph [0111] or any equivalents thereof.
“A reference unit” in claim 6. A reference unit will be interpreted to encompass the structure disclosed in paragraph [0127] or any equivalents thereof.
“A recording unit” in claim 6. A recording unit will be interpreted to encompass the structure disclosed in paragraph [0127] or any equivalents thereof.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-9 are also rejected with their dependency on claim 1. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2161.01 states that “when examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.” If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.
Claim limitation “control module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure and acts to the function. For “control module”, it seems that the specification does not disclose the necessary steps to perform the recited function of “determining a target regulation area where the target cell is located based on the detection image.”
Claim limitation “recording unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure and acts to the function. For “recording unit”, it seems that the specification does not disclose the necessary steps to perform the recited function of “determining a first transmission matrix based on an interference between different beams in the combined beam” or “acquiring the object beam and determining a second transmission matrix based on the object beam”.
Therefore, claims 1-9 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
Claim 1 and 6 are 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. Claims 2-9 are also rejected with their dependency on claim 1.
Claim limitation “control module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure and acts to the function. For “control module”, it seems that the specification does not disclose the necessary steps to perform the recited function of “determining a target regulation area where the target cell is located based on the detection image.”
Claim limitation “recording unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure and acts to the function. For “recording unit”, it seems that the specification does not disclose the necessary steps to perform the recited function of “determining a first transmission matrix based on an interference between different beams in the combined beam” or “acquiring the object beam and determining a second transmission matrix based on the object beam”.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan et al. (All-Optical Physiology, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Fan teaches a system for regulating a living tissue cell, comprising: ([page 2, summary] “We combined genetically targeted voltage imaging with targeted optogenetic activation and silencing of pre- and post-synaptic neurons to study the mechanisms underlying hippocampal behavioral timescale plasticity”) a laser source module ([page 21] “Optical system… with two photon beams”), configured for generating a first laser ([page 21] “A red laser”) and a second laser ([page 21] “A blue laser”), wherein the first laser is configured for regulating a target cell based on optogenetics ([page 4, left column] “For targeted optogenetic stimulation, we used a digital micromirror device (DMD) to pattern illumination… and a soma-localized blue-shifted channel rhodopsin, sombC1C2TG (STAR Methods)” is regulation of rhodopsin cells via light stimulation), and the second laser is configured for imaging a target area ([page 4, left column] “we built a holographic structured-illumination system and performed voltage imaging with targeted illumination of red light”), and the target area refers to an area to be regulated in a living tissue where the target cell is located ([page 4, right column] “targeting optogenetic stimulation to single cells while simultaneously imaging surrounding cells” with “head-fixed mice running on a spherical treadmill” expressing “CA1” markers); a modulation module, configured for modulating the received first laser based on a preset modulation strategy to determine a regulation light ([page 21, para 3] “a blue laser… then projected onto a digital micromirror device with a resolution of 1024 x 768 pixels (DMD, Vialux, V-7001 VIS). The patterned blue beam”) and modulating the received second laser based on the preset modulation strategy to determine an imaging light ([page 21, para 10] “then projected onto the surface of a reflection-mode liquid crystal spatial light modulator (BNS) as with the macroSLM73” and [page 21, para 2] “The SLM phased pattern was calculated using the Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm” is a modulation strategy for a laser) wherein the preset modulation strategy refers to a strategy for wavefront modulation of the first laser and the second laser ([page 4, last paragraph] “micromirror-patterned optogenetic stimulation” is created using [page 21, para 2] “The SLM phased pattern was calculated using the Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm” is a wavefront modulation strategy for a laser); an optical fiber module, configured for outputting the regulation light or the imaging light, wherein the regulation light is configured for regulating the target cell ([page 21, para 5] “For optogenetic modulation of CA2/3, a 594 nm laser… was focused into a multimode optical fiber”); an imaging module, configured for receiving a fluorescence signal in the target area through the optical fiber module ([page 21, para 4] “Fluorescence was collected on a scientific CMOS camera” and “The image was relayed from the objective to the camera via a series of three lenses including the tube lens inside the … microscope”) and determining a detection image corresponding to the target area based on the fluorescence signal ([Figure S1] “(I) Voltage imaging of CA1 cells during VR behavior. Red: single-trial unfiltered fluorescence traces of somQuasAr6a recorded at 1 kHz.” Showing fluorescence), wherein the fluorescence signal is a light emitted by the target area after being illuminated by the imaging light ([page 4, left column] “illumination of red light to excite somQuasAr6a”); and a control module, in communication connection with the imaging module and configured for determining a target regulation area where the target cell is located based on the detection image ([page 21, paragraph 2] “The SLM device was controlled by custom software. A user specified area for the SLM to target by drawing on a wide-field epifluorescence image or a 2P fluorescence image”), wherein the target regulation area belongs to the area to be regulated (page 2, summary] “targeted optogenetic activation of individual CA1 cells at specific places induced stable representations of these places in the targeted cells”).
Regarding claim 2, Fan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Fan also teaches wherein the modulation module comprises a light regulation unit and a modulation unit ([page 20, paragraph 10] “a half-wave plate and polarizing beam splitter, expanded to a collimated beam of 42 mm diameter, then projected onto the surface of a reflection-mode liquid crystal spatial light modulator (BNS)”); the light regulation unit is configured for expanding or scaling a process light passing through the modulation module (see [expanded to a collimated beam splitter] above), wherein the process light at least comprises the first laser and the second laser ([page 20] “A red laser … expanded to a collimated beam of 42 mm diameter” and [page 21] “A blue laser… was expanded to a collimated beam of 17 mm diameter”); and the modulation unit is configured for adjusting a phase and an intensity of the process light based on the preset modulation strategy ([page 21, para 2] “The SLM phased pattern was calculated using the Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm”; see also [page 20, paragraph 1] “a series of OD filters were placed after the red laser for modulating intensity”).
Regarding claim 3, Fan teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Fan also teaches wherein the light regulation unit comprises: a first lens assembly and a second lens assembly ([page 21, paragraph 1] “The SLM was re-imaged onto the back-focal plane of the objective via a series of relay optics”); the modulation unit comprises a holographic modulation assembly ([page 21, para 10] “a reflection-mode liquid crystal spatial light modulator (BNS) as with the macroSLM73” and [page 21, para 2] “The SLM phased pattern was calculated using the Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm”); the first lens assembly is configured for expanding the first laser and the second laser ([page 20] “A red laser … expanded to a collimated beam of 42 mm diameter” and [page 21] “A blue laser… was expanded to a collimated beam of 17 mm diameter”); the holographic modulation assembly is configured for adjusting a phase and an intensity of the first laser and the second laser after being expanded based on a preset modulation strategy to obtain a first output light and a second output light ([page 4, left column] “we built a holographic structured-illumination system and performed voltage imaging with targeted illumination of red light” and [page 21, paragraph 3] “The patterned blue beam was combined with the patterned red beam via a dichroic mirror. The DMD was re-imaged onto the sample at a magnification”); and the second lens assembly is configured for scaling the first output light and the second output light and determining the regulation light and the imaging light ([page 21, paragraph 1] “The SLM was re-imaged onto the back-focal plane of the objective via a series of relay optics and the Bruker two photon microscope”).
Regarding claim 4, Fan teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Fan also teaches wherein the light regulation unit further comprises a screening assembly ([page 20, last paragraph] “a custom anti-pinhole”); the screening assembly is configured for screening a first target order of the first output light from different diffraction orders corresponding to the first output light and a first target order of the second output light from different diffraction orders corresponding to the second output light; the regulation light is a light whose diffraction order is the first target order in the first output light, and the imaging light is a light whose diffraction order is the first target order in the second output light. ([page 20 and 21] “Zero-order diffraction was blocked by a custom anti-pinhole comprised of two magnetic beads (K&J Magnetics, D101-N52) on each side of a glass slide (VWR, Menzel Glaser, 630–2129), placed in a plane conjugate to the sample image plane.”)
Regarding claim 8, Fan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Fan also teaches wherein the control module is further in communication connection with the modulation module ([page 21, para 6] “The entire setup was controlled by custom software written in LabView. Interfacing was via a National Instruments DAQ” and [page 23, para 5] “National Instruments DAQ … were recorded on the behavior and voltage imaging computers.”); the control module is also configured for determining the preset modulation strategy; ([page 21, paragraph 2] “A user specified area for the SLM to target by drawing on a wide-field epifluorescence image or a 2P fluorescence image” and [page 21, para 2] “The SLM phased pattern was calculated using the Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm”), the preset modulation strategy comprises a first modulation strategy and a second modulation strategy ([Figure 1, note A] “Holographic structured-illumination voltage imaging (red), micromirror-patterned optogenetic stimulation (blue)”); the first modulation strategy is configured for wavefront modulation of the first laser ([page 4, last paragraph] “micromirror-patterned optogenetic stimulation”); and the second modulation strategy is configured for wavefront modulation of the second laser.([Figure 1, note A] “Holographic structured-illumination” is created using [page 21, para 2] “The SLM phased pattern was calculated using the Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm” is a wavefront modulation strategy for a laser)
Regarding claim 9, Fan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Fan also teaches wherein the laser source module comprises: a first light regulation unit, a second light regulation unit, and a combining unit (([page 20, paragraph 10] “attenuated with a half-wave plate and polarizing beam splitter” and ([page 20] “A red laser … expanded to a collimated beam of 42 mm diameter” and [page 21] “A blue laser… was expanded to a collimated beam of 17 mm diameter” and [page 20, paragraph 1] “a series of OD filters were placed after the red laser for modulating intensity”); wherein the first light regulation unit is configured for controlling an intensity of the first laser (see [expanded to a collimated diameter] above); the second light regulation unit is configured for controlling an intensity of the second laser (see [expanded to a collimated diameter] above; see also [OD filters] above); the combining unit is configured for combining the first laser and the second laser into one channel of light wherein the first laser passes through the combining unit, and the second laser is reflected by the combining unit. ([page 21, paragraph 3] “The patterned blue beam was combined with the patterned red beam via a dichroic mirror. The DMD was re-imaged onto the sample at a magnification”),
Regarding claim 10, Fan teaches a method for regulating a living tissue cell, applied to a system for regulating a living tissue cell ([page 2, summary] “We combined genetically targeted voltage imaging with targeted optogenetic activation and silencing of pre- and post-synaptic neurons to study the mechanisms underlying hippocampal behavioral timescale plasticity”) and comprising: receiving a first laser and a second laser, wherein the first laser is configured for regulating a target cell based on optogenetics, ([page 4] “a soma-localized blue-shifted channelrhodopsin, sombC1C2TG… blue light evoked robust photocurrents”) and the second laser is configured for imaging a target area ([page 4, left column] “performed voltage imaging with targeted illumination of red light excite somQuasAr6a”), and the target area refers to an area to be regulated in a living tissue where the target cell is located ([page 4, right column] “targeting optogenetic stimulation to single cells while simultaneously imaging surrounding cells” with “head-fixed mice running on a spherical treadmill” expressing “CA1” markers); modulating the received first laser based on a preset modulation strategy to obtain a regulation light after modulation ([page 4, left column] “For targeted optogenetic stimulation, we used a digital micromirror device (DMD) to pattern illumination” and [page 21, para 3] “projected onto a digital micromirror device … The patterned blue beam”), and modulating the received second laser based on the preset modulation strategy to obtain an imaging light after modulation ([page 21, para 10] “then projected onto the surface of a reflection-mode liquid crystal spatial light modulator (BNS) as with the macroSLM73” and [page 21, para 2] “The SLM phased pattern was calculated using the Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm” is a modulation strategy for a laser), wherein the preset modulation strategy refers to a strategy for wavefront modulation of the first laser and the second laser ([page 4, left column] “we built a holographic structured-illumination with targeted illumination of red light” and [page 4, last paragraph] “micromirror-patterned optogenetic stimulation” is created using [page 21, para 2] “The SLM phased pattern was calculated using the Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm” as a wavefront modulation strategy for a laser); receiving a fluorescence signal in the target area, and determining a detection image corresponding to the target area based on the fluorescence signal ([page 21, para 4] “Fluorescence was collected on a scientific CMOS camera” and [Figure S1] “(I) Voltage imaging of CA1 cells”), wherein the fluorescence signal is a light emitted by the target area after being illuminated by the imaging light ([Figure S1] “(I) Voltage imaging of CA1 cells during VR behavior. Red: single-trial unfiltered fluorescence traces of somQuasAr6a recorded at 1 kHz.” Showing fluorescence); determining a target regulation area where the target cell is located based on the detection image ([page 21, paragraph 2] “A user specified area for the SLM to target by drawing on a wide-field epifluorescence image or a 2P fluorescence image”), wherein the target regulation area belongs to the area to be regulated (page 2, summary] “targeted optogenetic activation of individual CA1 cells at specific places”); and regulating the target cell based on the regulation light in the target regulation area ([page 5, left column] “Optogenetic stimulation targeted to single cells (300 ms duration, 25 mW/mm2) readily evoked spikes and plateau potentials that were clearly resolved via holographically targeted voltage imaging”.)
Regarding claim 11, Fan teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer program codes, which, when being executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method for regulating the living tissue cell according to claim 10. ([page 21, para 6] “The entire setup was controlled by custom software written in LabView. Interfacing was via a National Instruments DAQ” and [page 23, para 5] “National Instruments DAQ … were recorded on the behavior and voltage imaging computers.”)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (All-optical Physiology, 2023) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cižmár et al. (Exploiting multimode waveguides, 2012).
Regarding claim 5, Fan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Fan does not explicitly teach, as taught by Cižmár wherein the laser source module comprises a beam splitting unit ([page 20, paragraph 10] “a half-wave plate and polarizing beam splitter”), the beam splitting unit is configured for dividing the second laser beam into a second signal beam and a reference beam ([page 3, Figure 1] “we split the light signal at the SLM into two pathways (superimposing different phase gratings) that are later recombined on a polarizing beam splitter”); the second signal beam is configured for imaging the target area ([page 5, Figure 4] “imaging hologram applied to the SLM acts in such a way that for every angle of incidence of the laser beam the light behind the fibre forms an optimally focused beam at different locations across the sample plane.”); and the reference beam is configured for calibrating the second signal beam. ([page 8, methods] “The calibra-tion technique is based upon a field decomposition into a series of orthogonal optical modes defined in the plane of a SLM and further sequentially analyzed behind the randomizing optical system by interference with a reference signal”);
Fan and Cižmár are both in the same field of endeavor optogenetic systems and disclose features for the purpose of delivering light intensity to deeper tissue regions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fan’s device to include a multimode-fiber-based optical stimulation system containing a beam splitter that creates a reference signal for calibrating laser characteristics, as taught and suggested by Cižmár, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would increase the light intensity in response to adjusting for various refractions.
Regarding claim 6, Fan- Cižmár as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 5. Fan does not explicitly teach, as taught by Cižmár, wherein the system further comprises a calibration module, ([page 8, Methods] “an imaging device is to quantify the way the light propagates within the particular experimental geometry, that is, measure the transformation matrix of the system, and based on this result design an imaging hologram efficiently invert-ing this transformation to reconstruct an image of the sample field. The method we use for this purpose will henceforth be referred to as ‘the calibration’”) and the calibration module comprises a reference unit ([Page 8, Methods] “we use an external reference via a separate optical pathway to get the highest efficiency for all output modes” is reference unit) and a recording unit ([Page 3, figure 1] “onto the detector CCD1, imaging the fibre input facet (the sample plane)”); the reference unit is configured for converging the reference beam to the recording unit ([page 5 figure 4] “The signal leaving the fibre is imaged onto the CCD by a telescope”); the recording unit is configured for: acquiring a combined beam, and determining a first transmission matrix based on an interference between different beams in the combined beam (see [transformation matrix] above; see also [page 8, Methods] “calibra-tion technique is based upon a field decomposition into a series of orthogonal optical modes defined in the plane of a SLM and further sequentially analysed behind the randomizing optical system by interference with a reference signal”) wherein the combined beam comprises the reference beam and an object beam, ([page 2, results] “this calibration takes the form of a transformation matrix between orthogonal ‘SLM modes’—with each mode comprising of reflected light from a square segment of the SLM chip—and ‘sample modes’ that refer to ideally focused light beams at a given distance behind the optical fibre”), and the object beam refers to the regulation light or the imaging light which is irradiated on the target area. ([page 2, results] “During the calibration, the SLM modes propagate from the SLM plane through the whole optical system (including the multimode fibre) into the sample, where they are recorded and analysed”) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fan’s device to include a multimode-fiber-based optical stimulation system containing a beam splitter that creates a reference signal for calibrating laser characteristics, as taught and suggested by Cižmár, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would increase the light intensity in response to adjusting for various refractions.
Regarding claim 7, Fan-Cižmár as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 6. Fan also teaches wherein the reference unit further comprises a shutter assembly, the shutter assembly is configured for controlling the reference beam to converge to the recording unit or blocking the reference beam from converging to the recording unit ([page 21, paragraph 1] “A mechanical shutter blocked the laser between data acquisitions”) and in a case where the shutter assembly blocks the reference beam from converging to the recording unit, and [page 21, paragraph 4] “the camera region of interest (ROI) was restricted to typically 200 rows, centered on the image-sensor midline” is the camera’s light source being controlled). Regarding claim 7, Fan does not explicitly teach, as taught by Cižmár the recording unit is configured for acquiring the object beam and determining a second transmission matrix based on the object beam. ([page 2, results] “this calibration takes the form of a transformation matrix between orthogonal ‘SLM modes’—with each mode comprising of reflected light from a square segment of the SLM chip—and ‘sample modes’ that refer to ideally focused light beams at a given distance behind the optical fibre”) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fan’s device to modulate a multimode-fiber-based optical stimulation system containing a beam splitter and recording unit that creates a reference signal for calibrating laser characteristics, as taught and suggested by Cižmár, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would increase the light intensity in response to adjusting for various refractions.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Caravaca-Aguirre et al. (Pat. 10254534) discloses a system for using a single multimode Fiber endoscope using a laser, DMD, CMOS, lenses, and other structures to direct light for optogenetics.
Redford (Pat. 9952418) discloses a photomanipulation device that includes multiple spatial light modulators (SLMs).
Berns et al. (Pat. 9321990) discloses an optomechanical systems for ablating the endogenous nucleus in a cell.
Hsueh et al. (Cardiogenic control of affective behavioural state) discloses a system for testing a noninvasive optogenetic pacemaker
Wang et al. (US20160305914) uses wavefront shaping to increase light intensity for the benefits of extreme light intensity needed in optogenetics.
Lal et al. (20210154489) discloses a method for optogenetics experiments, based on wavefront shaping.
Tardif et al. (US20220268702) discloses Optogenetic systems and methods for probing a specimen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ANTHONY SKROBARCZYK whose telephone number is (571)272-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30AM -5PM CST.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571-272-8506. 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.
/R.A.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights