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
The instant application having Application No. 18/804,614 filed on August 14, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner. The amended claims submitted September 10, 2026 in response to the office action mailed July 2, 2026 are under consideration. Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 8-12 are pending and amended at least by the amendments to independent claim 1. Claims 3-4 and 7 are cancelled.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brukilacchio US 2012/0099308 A1 (hereafter Brukilacchio) in view of Li et al. US 2007/0291491 A1 (hereafter Li).
Regarding claim 1, Brukilacchio teaches “An illumination unit (Figs. 16 and 17 which include LED arrays 1710) for an optical microscope (paragraph [0002]: “Applications include industrial illumination such as machine vision, medical such as tissue illumination or fluorescence… or as a multi-spectral illumination source for fluorescence excitation and subsequent detection by a camera imaging system.” Although Brukilacchio does not explicitly state that these imaging systems are microscopes, all of these applications are typically microscopes such that the illumination system is appropriate for an optical microscope. Note that until claim 8, no microscope is actually part of the claimed device, just a preamble statement of intended use.), comprising the following components:
a multiplicity of individual light sources (paragraph [0052]: “four independent and physically spaced LED arrays”); and
a multiplicity of light mixing elements (four collection optics 1670 or the combination of 1670 and filters 1640, which are light mixing elements see e.g. paragraph [0044]: “One important property of the collection optic 460 is its ability to homogenize the output such that any one point, or individual LED die, at the input is substantially mixed spatially at the exit aperture 710.”), each having the shape of a solid or hollow (paragraph [0052]: “the optic to be readily made by glass, plastic or silicone molding techniques.” thus 1670 is most likely solid, with the only other possibility being hollow, and thus is one or the other.) pyramidal frustum (see Fig. 17 and paragraph [0052]: “The collection optic for this case, which is tapered, has a first section near the input aperture 1660, which transitions to a compound parabolic section near the middle of the optic 1670, and then transitions to a tapered section near the output aperture 1680” thus 1670 is “pyramidal” in that the two ends are flat pyramidal portions and the middle is a slightly curved pyramidal portion. It is a frustrum because it is truncated at the input aperture 1660) with a bottom base (the output aperture 1680 or the exit surface of 1640), a top base (input aperture 1660), a lateral face (the lateral faces of 1670/1640) and an axis (the axis of each collection optic 1670), with the individual light sources each being arranged above the top bases of the light mixing elements (paragraph [0052]: “four independent and physically spaced LED arrays coincident with a set of four input apertures 1660 (typical) to a corresponding collection optic 1670 for each LED die or LED die array.”) and with the bottom bases of the light mixing elements together forming a light exit surface of the illumination unit (the combined exit surface of 1680 or the combined exit surfaces of filters 1640),
wherein the bottom bases of the pyramidal frustum-shaped light mixing elements each have the external shape of a convex polygon (e.g. claim 13: “wherein said different cross sectional shapes of laid non-imaging concentrators are selected from the group comprising squares, rectangles… and polygons.” In Figs. 16-17 1680 and 1640 are square.), which is suitable for gap-free tessellation of the bottom bases (see gap-free tessellation of 1680 and 1640 in Fig. 17), wherein the bottom bases of the pyramidal frustum-shaped light mixing elements each have the external shape of a regular [polygon] (e.g. claim 13, squares are regular polygons), and
wherein three of the bottom bases of the light mixing elements come into contact at one point on a central axis of the light exit surface (see Fig. 17, the four collection optics come into contact at one central point on a central axis of the combined light exit surface. Thus any three of the optics also come into contact at one point on the central axis of the light exit surface.).”
However, Brukilacchio fails to explicitly teach “wherein the bottom bases of the pyramidal frustum-shaped light mixing elements each have the external shape of a… hexagon” instead teaching the genus of polygons (see claim 13) which includes hexagons, but which is very large genus from triangles to shapes which approach circles.
Li teaches “An illumination unit (paragraph [0068]: “illumination system 1000” of Figs. 11A and 12) for an optical microscope (given the claim limitations that are met below, 1000 is considered to be appropriate for an optical microscope), comprising the following components:
a multiplicity of individual light sources (two LEDs 100); and
a multiplicity of light mixing elements (two tapered input light pipes 250), each having the shape of a solid or hollow (paragraph [0053]: “It is appreciated that the light pipe 300 can be hollow or solid” Since 350 are also light pipes, one would appreciate that 350 can also be hollow or solid) pyramidal frustum (tapered input light pipes) with a bottom base (the base attached to 300), a top base (the base proximate to the LEDs 100), a lateral face (the lateral faces of the tapered light pipes) and an axis (the axis of each light pipe), with the individual light sources each being arranged above the top bases of the light mixing elements (see Fig. 11) and with the bottom bases of the light mixing elements together forming a light exit surface of the illumination unit (paragraph [0068]: “the output ends of the tapered input light pipes 350 are coupled to the output light pipe 300… The dimensions of the output ends of the tapered input light pipes 350 are preferably matched to the dimensions of the input end of the output light pipe 300, such that there are minimal gaps between the output ends of input light pipes 350 to achieve high coupling of light.”),
wherein the bottom bases of the pyramidal frustum-shaped light mixing elements each have the external shape of a convex polygon (paragraph [0069]: “The shapes of the LEDs 100 and the input light pipes 350 can be… triangular, hexagonal, octagonal and the like.”), which is suitable for gap-free tessellation of the bottom bases (paragraphs [0068]-[0069]: “The dimensions of the output ends of the tapered input light pipes 350 are preferably matched to the dimensions of the input end of the output light pipe 300, such that there are minimal gaps between the output ends of input light pipes 350 to achieve high coupling of light… as shown in FIGS. 11a-b and 12, the LEDs/LED chips 100 and the input light pipes 350 are densely or closely packed.”),
wherein the bottom bases of the pyramidal frustum-shaped light mixing elements each have the external shape of a… hexagon (see paragraph [0069]: “The shapes of the LEDs 100 and the input light pipes 350 can be… hexagonal.” Paragraph [0068]: “The dimensions of the output ends of the tapered input light pipes 350 are preferably matched to the dimensions of the input end of the output light pipe 300” and paragraph [0053]: “It is appreciated that the light pipe 300… can have any cross-sectional dimensional shape including but not limited to rectangular, hexagonal, triangular, etc.”).”
Brukilacchio discloses the claimed invention except that a square shaped bottom base of the light mixing element is used instead of a hexagonal shape. Li shows that a light pipe with a hexagonal bottom base is an equivalent structure in the art to a rectangular bottom base, see paragraph [0053]. Therefore, because these two polygonal based light pipes were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a hexagonally based light mixing element for a square based light mixing element, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Li teaches that an ordinary skilled artisan would appreciate that the light pipe can have any cross-sectional dimensional shape including rectangular or hexagonal (see paragraphs [0053] and [0069]) and Brukilacchio teaches the genus of polygonally shaped light pipes (see claim 13) of which hexagons are a low-number sided species.
Note that the combination of limitations “wherein the bottom bases of the pyramidal frustum-shaped light mixing elements each have the external shape of a regular hexagon, and wherein three of the bottom bases of the light mixing elements come into contact at one point on a central axis of the light exit surface” are considered to be met by the above combination of references. Brukilacchio already teaches that the light-pipes should have the shape of a regular polygon and come into contact with one another at a vertex of the polygon centered on the central axis of the light exit surface (Fig. 17). Li likewise teaches that the input light pipes are densely or closely packed with minimal gaps between the output ends thereof (see paragraphs [0068]-[0069]). It is inherent to the nature of hexagons, that the closely packed configuration thereof is a honeycomb tessellation with each vertex being shared by three adjoining hexagons. Thus, when modifying Brukilacchio to have light mixing elements with hexagonal bases, rather than square bases, one would be able to retain the feature of the central axis coinciding with a shared vertex of the polygons, such that three of the bottom bases of the light mixing elements come into contact at one point on a central axis of the light exit surface. Further, when replacing the four-sided regular square polygonal shape with a six-sided hexagonal shape, one can likewise keep the feature of Brukilacchio that the polygon is a regular polygon.
Regarding claim 2, Brukilacchio – Li combination teaches “The illumination unit as claimed in claim 1,” and Brukilacchio further teaches “wherein the light mixing elements (e.g. paragraph [0044]: “One important property of the collection optic 460 is its ability to homogenize the output such that any one point, or individual LED die, at the input is substantially mixed spatially at the exit aperture 710.”) are each formed by a light mixing rod (see shape of a rod in Figs. 16-17 and paragraph [0051]: “light pipe”) in the form of a solid pyramidal frustum or each formed by a hollow integrator in the form of a hollow pyramidal frustum (With respect to solid or hollow see paragraph [0052]: “the optic to be readily made by glass, plastic or silicone molding techniques.” thus 1670 is most likely solid, with the only other possibility being hollow, and thus is one or the other. With respect to pyramidal frustum see Fig. 17 and paragraph [0052]: “The collection optic for this case, which is tapered, has a first section near the input aperture 1660, which transitions to a compound parabolic section near the middle of the optic 1670, and then transitions to a tapered section near the output aperture 1680” thus 1670 is “pyramidal” in that the two ends are flat pyramidal portions and the middle is a slightly curved pyramidal portion. It is a frustrum because it is truncated at the input aperture 1660).”
Regarding claim 5, the Brukilacchio – Li combination teaches “The illumination unit as claimed in claim 1,” and Brukilacchio further teaches “wherein the bottom bases of the pyramidal frustum-shaped light mixing elements completely fill the light exit surface of the illumination unit (see Fig. 17, 1680 and 1640 completely fill the combined light exit surface thereof).”
Regarding claim 6, the Brukilacchio – Li combination teaches “The illumination unit as claimed in claim 1,” and Brukilacchio further teaches “wherein the pyramidal frustum-shaped light mixing elements each have a termination region (1640), in which the lateral faces are perpendicular to the axis, at their bottom bases (see Figs. 16 and 17, the filters 1640 have lateral faces that would reasonably be considered to be perpendicular to the axis of the collection optics).”
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brukilacchio US 2012/0099308 A1 (hereafter Brukilacchio) in view of Li et al. US 2007/0291491 A1 (hereafter Li) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fisch et al. US 2022/0155574 A1 (hereafter Fisch).
Regarding claim 8, the Brukilacchio – Li combination teaches “an illumination unit as claimed in claim 1” and Brukilacchio further teaches “examining a sample (paragraph [0002]: “tissue illumination or fluorescence… a multi-spectral illumination source for fluorescence excitation and subsequent detection by a camera imaging system”) comprising the following components:
an imaging optical unit (paragraph [0002]: “a camera imaging system”) for imaging the sample (paragraph [0002]: “tissue illumination or fluorescence… a multi-spectral illumination source for fluorescence excitation and subsequent detection by a camera imaging system”); … illuminating the sample (paragraph [0002]: “tissue illumination or fluorescence… a multi-spectral illumination source for fluorescence excitation and subsequent detection by a camera imaging system”).”
However, Brukilacchio fails to explicitly teach “An optical microscope for examining a sample by microscopy.”
Brukilacchio does not explicitly state that the imaging systems of paragraph [0002] are microscopes, however, it is worth noting that all of the applications in paragraph [0002] are typically microscopes.
Fisch teaches (claim 1) “An illumination unit (at least the following enumerated components of the illumination assembly 20) for an optical microscope (optical apparatus 10, which can be a microscope see paragraphs [0002] and [0006]), comprising the following components:
a multiplicity of individual light sources (within extended radiation source 22, one can consider each group of emitters 54 as being an individual light source albeit on that is made up of multiple emitters 58 and 60); and
a multiplicity of light mixing elements (homogenizing rods 24), each having the shape of a solid or hollow (paragraph [0033]: “homogenizing rods 24, which typically comprise solid rods fabricated of a material that is transparent to the radiation emitted by source 22 and/or hollow rods with reflective inner walls.”) pyramidal frustum (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0033]: “for example, the linear extent of exit face 26 of each homogenizing rod 24 is larger than its entrance face 25 by a factor of 2.5 or 3.”) with a bottom base (exit face 26), a top base (entrance face 25), a lateral face (the lateral face or faces between 25 and 26) and an axis (the axis of each rod 24), with the individual light sources each being arranged above the top bases of the light mixing elements (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0057]: “Homogenizing rods 24 are arranged so that there is exactly one homogenizing rod with its entrance face 25 facing each cell”) and with the bottom bases of the light mixing elements together forming a light exit surface of the illumination unit (see Fig. 1, the exit faces 26 together form the light exit surface of 20/22),
wherein the bottom bases of the pyramidal frustum-shaped light mixing elements each have the external shape of a convex polygon (paragraph [0033]: “The cross section of homogenizing rods 24 is typically rectangular (for example, square)” where both rectangles and squares are convex polygons), which is suitable for gap-free tessellation of the bottom bases (rectangles and squares are both shapes that are “suitable for gap-free tessellation of the bottom bases”, in that it is possible to tile squares or rectangles together without gaps. Note that claim 3 does not recite that the bottom base forms a gap-free tessellation, just that the shapes have to be suitable for such a configuration. Note further that the claim does not recite that the external shape and size have to be suitable for this use, just that the shape must be suitable for this use).”
(claim 8) “An optical microscope for examining a sample (field 34) by microscopy (optical apparatus 10, which can be a microscope see paragraphs [0002] and [0006]), comprising the following components:
an imaging optical unit (imaging assembly 76) for imaging the sample (e.g. paragraph [0029]: “[0029] Imaging assembly 76 comprises objective optics 77 and a sensor 79, wherein the objective optics image field 34 onto the sensor.”); and
an illumination unit as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 above) for illuminating the sample (see Fig. 1).”
Fisch further teaches (paragraph [0018]): “In applications of optical imaging systems, for example optical inspection of work pieces during a manufacturing process, an illuminator is used to illuminate a field on the workpiece with optical radiation. (The terms “optical radiation,” “radiation,” and “light” as used in the present description and in the claims refer generally to any and all of visible, infrared, and ultraviolet radiation.) The illuminated field of the workpiece is imaged by imaging optics and detected by a suitable sensor.”
(paragraph [0024]): “The embodiments of the present invention that are described herein address the problems described above by providing illuminators for use in conjunction with a beamsplitter and imaging assembly that achieve a high degree of both radiant intensity and irradiance over a large numerical aperture and a large optical field.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the illumination unit of the Brukilacchio – Li combination into an optical microscope as taught by Fisch, in order to fulfill the needs of applications such as optical inspection of work pieces during manufacturing as taught by Fisch (paragraphs [0018],[0024]).
Regarding claim 9, the Brukilacchio – Li – Fisch combination teaches “The optical microscope as claimed in claim 8” however, Brukilacchio fails to teach “wherein said optical microscope comprises a beam splitter which divides the microscope beam path into an observation component beam path and an illumination component beam path, the light exit surface of the illumination unit being arranged in the illumination component beam path.”
Fisch teaches “wherein said optical microscope comprises a beam splitter (prism combiner 32) which divides the microscope beam path into an observation component beam path and an illumination component beam path (e.g. paragraph [0027]: “a prism combiner 32, which combines the optical axes of the illumination and imaging assemblies”), the light exit surface of the illumination unit being arranged in the illumination component beam path (see Fig. 1, the exit surface comprising exit faces 26 is in the illumination component beam path).”
Fisch further teaches (paragraph [0023]): “When the illuminator is used as part of an imaging system, it is often necessary to insert a beamsplitter in the path of the illumination, so that an imaging assembly can capture images of the optical field.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a beamsplitter which divides the microscope beam path into an observation component beam path and an illumination component beam path, where the light exit surface of the illumination unit being arranged in the illumination component beam path as taught by Fisch in the microscope of the Brukilacchio – Li – Fisch combination so that an imaging assembly can capture images of the optical field as taught by Fisch (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 10, the Brukilacchio – Li – Fisch combination teaches “a microscope as claimed in claim 8”, however Brukilacchio fails to teach “A method for using a microscope as claimed in claim 8, comprising the following steps:
determining a selection of the individual light sources according to a specified characteristic of illumination of the sample to be achieved by the illumination unit; and
operating the selected individual light sources to illuminate the sample according to the specified characteristic of the illumination.”
Fisch teaches “A method for using (see steps below) a microscope … comprising the following steps:
determining a selection of the individual light sources according to a specified characteristic of illumination of the sample to be achieved by the illumination unit (paragraph [0058]: “Each one of emitters 58 and 60 within each group 54 can be independently energized by radiation source controller 23. Illumination assembly 20 can thus illuminate only parts of the numerical aperture, such as for example dark field illumination or right or left side only, as well as controlling the spectral content of the illumination by enabling separate or simultaneous illumination at different wavelengths λ1 and λ2.”); and
operating the selected individual light sources to illuminate the sample according to the specified characteristic of the illumination (paragraph [0058]: “Each one of emitters 58 and 60 within each group 54 can be independently energized by radiation source controller 23. Illumination assembly 20 can thus illuminate only parts of the numerical aperture, such as for example dark field illumination or right or left side only, as well as controlling the spectral content of the illumination by enabling separate or simultaneous illumination at different wavelengths λ1 and λ2.”).”
Fisch further teaches (paragraph [0038]): “implementing the multi-modal functionality of illumination assembly 20, providing both bright-field and dark-field illumination”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively operate the individual light sources as taught by Fisch in order to obtain different modalities of illumination of the specimen such as bright field illumination, dark field illumination or right or left side only as taught by Fisch (see paragraphs [0038] and [0058]).
To the extent that it is necessary to increase the number of light sources and adjoining light mixing elements to enable these illumination modalities, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the number of light sources and adjoining light mixing elements as taught by Fisch in order to obtain different modalities of illumination of the specimen such as bright field illumination, dark field illumination or right or left side only as taught by Fisch (see paragraphs [0038] and [0058]).
Note that there is no reason why one would necessarily have to alter the position of the central axis of the light exit surface that is already taught by Brukilacchio when adding additional light sources.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brukilacchio US 2012/0099308 A1 (hereafter Brukilacchio) in view of Li et al. US 2007/0291491 A1 (hereafter Li) and Fisch et al. US 2022/0155574 A1 (hereafter Fisch) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Vom et al. US 2019/0064496 A1 (hereafter Vom).
Regarding claim 11, the Brukilacchio – Li – Fisch combination teaches “The method as claimed in claim 10,” however, Brukilacchio fails to teach “wherein the selection of the individual light sources comprises those of the individual light sources whose assigned light mixing elements with their bottom bases in a radial direction are located in an observation pupil of the microscope to illuminate the sample with a coaxial bright-field reflected light illumination.”
Fisch teaches “wherein the selection of the individual light sources comprises those of the individual light sources whose assigned light mixing elements with their bottom bases (paragraph [0038]: “implementing the multi-modal functionality of illumination assembly 20, providing both bright-field and dark-field illumination”) … are located in an observation pupil of the microscope (paragraph [0036]: “the exit pupil of condensing optics 21”) to illuminate the sample with a… bright-field reflected light illumination (paragraph [0038]: “implementing the multi-modal functionality of illumination assembly 20, providing …bright-field… illumination” That this is reflected light can be seen from Fig. 1 where the imaging assembly 76 views light reflected by the sample, not transmitted through the sample.).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the light sources of the illumination unit in a manner that achieves bright field illumination as taught by Fisch, because bright field illumination is amongst the desirable multi-modal functionalities of such an illumination assembly (see Fisch paragraph [0038]).
However, the Brukilacchio – Li – Fisch combination fails to explicitly teach “the individual light sources … in a radial direction… to illuminate the sample with a coaxial bright-field… light illumination.”
Vom teaches (claim 1) “An illumination unit (e.g. paragraph [0111]: “combined dark field/bright field illumination source”) for an optical microscope (paragraph [0002]: “dark and bright field microscopy”), comprising the following components:
a multiplicity of individual light sources (Fig. 8 light emitting diodes 175 and 180)”
(claim 8) “An optical microscope (Fig. 1) for examining a sample (e.g. paragraph [0006]: “sample”) by microscopy (e.g. paragraph [0002]: “dark and bright field microscopy”), comprising the following components:
an imaging optical unit (objective 004) for imaging the sample (paragraph [0006]: “light that is scattered by the sample and enters the objective lens is seen as an image in dark field… a solid cone of light 005, which illuminates and enters the objective lens 004 in bright field”); and
an illumination unit … for illuminating the sample (see e.g. Fig. 1).”
(claim 10) A method (see steps below) for using a microscope… comprising the following steps:
determining a selection of the individual light sources (e.g. paragraph [0107]: “a single central Light Emitting Diode (LED) 175 is used as the illumination source for the bright field image capture, view or review… Concentrically around the central LED is an array of LEDs 180, used to create the illumination for the dark field image capture, view or review.”) according to a specified characteristic of illumination of the sample to be achieved by the illumination unit (e.g. paragraph [0107] bright field or dark field); and
operating the selected individual light sources to illuminate the sample according to the specified characteristic of the illumination (e.g. paragraph [0107]: “a single central Light Emitting Diode (LED) 175 is used as the illumination source for the bright field image capture, view or review… Concentrically around the central LED is an array of LEDs 180, used to create the illumination for the dark field image capture, view or review.”).”
(claim 11) The method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the selection of the individual light sources comprises those of the individual light sources… in a radial direction (central LED 175) are located in an observation pupil of the microscope (paragraph [0006]: “a solid cone of light 005, which illuminates and enters the objective lens 004 in bright field” see Figs. 1 and 3) to illuminate the sample with a coaxial bright-field… light illumination (e.g. paragraph [0107]: “a single central Light Emitting Diode (LED) 175 is used as the illumination source for the bright field image capture, view or review).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate all of the light sources in a radial direction within the pupil as taught by Vom in order to achieve bright-field illumination because Fisch teaches independently energizing the light sources to achieve the desired illumination pattern including bright-field illumination, and Vom informs how to perform such a selection so that only the co-axial, central light source that will directly illuminate the sample can be selected to perform bright field microscopy.
To the extent that it is necessary to increase the number of light sources and adjoining light mixing elements to enable these illumination modalities, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the number of light sources and adjoining light mixing elements as taught by Fisch in order to obtain different modalities of illumination of the specimen such as bright field illumination, dark field illumination or right or left side only as taught by Fisch (see paragraphs [0038] and [0058]).
Note that there is no reason why one would necessarily have to alter the position of the central axis of the light exit surface that is already taught by Brukilacchio when adding additional light sources.
Regarding claim 12, the Brukilacchio – Li – Fisch combination teaches “The method as claimed in claim 10,” however, Brukilacchio fails to teach “wherein the selection of the individual light sources comprises those of the individual light sources whose assigned light mixing elements with their bottom bases in a radial direction are located outside of an observation pupil of the microscope to illuminate the sample with a coaxial dark-field illumination.”
Fisch teaches “wherein the selection of the individual light sources comprises those of the individual light sources whose assigned light mixing elements with their bottom bases in a radial direction … to illuminate the sample with a coaxial dark-field illumination (paragraph [0058]: “Each one of emitters 58 and 60 within each group 54 can be independently energized by radiation source controller 23. Illumination assembly 20 can thus illuminate only parts of the numerical aperture, such as for example dark field illumination”. These light sources have assigned mixing elements with bottom bases in a radial direction around the central axis of the illumination system, albeit where the radial position thereof has not been specified. This is coaxial illumination in that light from any of the emitters is directed parallel to the axis of the illumination system).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the light sources of the illumination unit in a manner that achieves dark field illumination as taught by Fisch, because dark field illumination is amongst the desirable multi-modal functionalities of such an illumination assembly (see Fisch paragraphs [0038] and [0058]).
However, Brukilacchio, Li and Fisch fail to explicitly teach “those of the individual light sources… in a radial direction are located outside of an observation pupil of the microscope”.
Vom teaches (claim 1) “An illumination unit (e.g. paragraph [0111]: “combined dark field/bright field illumination source”) for an optical microscope (paragraph [0002]: “dark and bright field microscopy”), comprising the following components:
a multiplicity of individual light sources (Fig. 8 light emitting diodes 175 and 180)”
(claim 8) “An optical microscope (Fig. 1) for examining a sample (e.g. paragraph [0006]: “sample”) by microscopy (e.g. paragraph [0002]: “dark and bright field microscopy”), comprising the following components:
an imaging optical unit (objective 004) for imaging the sample (paragraph [0006]: “light that is scattered by the sample and enters the objective lens is seen as an image in dark field… a solid cone of light 005, which illuminates and enters the objective lens 004 in bright field”); and
an illumination unit … for illuminating the sample (see e.g. Fig. 1).”
(claim 10) A method (see steps below) for using a microscope… comprising the following steps:
determining a selection of the individual light sources (e.g. paragraph [0107]: “a single central Light Emitting Diode (LED) 175 is used as the illumination source for the bright field image capture, view or review… Concentrically around the central LED is an array of LEDs 180, used to create the illumination for the dark field image capture, view or review.”) according to a specified characteristic of illumination of the sample to be achieved by the illumination unit (e.g. paragraph [0107] bright field or dark field); and
operating the selected individual light sources to illuminate the sample according to the specified characteristic of the illumination (e.g. paragraph [0107]: “a single central Light Emitting Diode (LED) 175 is used as the illumination source for the bright field image capture, view or review… Concentrically around the central LED is an array of LEDs 180, used to create the illumination for the dark field image capture, view or review.”).”
(claim 12) wherein the selection of the individual light sources comprises those of the individual light sources (e.g. paragraph [0107]: “an array of LEDs 180, used to create the illumination for the dark field image capture, view or review.”)… in a radial direction are located outside of an observation pupil of the microscope (paragraph [0006]: “light that is scattered by the sample and enters the objective lens is seen as an image in dark field” thus light emitted from 180 is outside of the observation pupil of the microscope and must be scattered by the sample into the observation pupil in order to be imaged by the microscope in dark-field operation) to illuminate the sample with a coaxial dark-field illumination (e.g. paragraph [0107]: “an array of LEDs 180, used to create the illumination for the dark field image capture, view or review.” where this is coaxial in that it surrounds the axis of illumination see Figs. 1 and 2).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the light sources in a radial direction outside the observation the pupil as taught by Vom in order to achieve dark-field illumination because Fisch teaches independently energizing the light sources to achieve the desired illumination pattern including dark-field illumination, and Vom informs how to perform such a selection so that only the co-axial, ring shaped array of LEDs outside of the observation pupil that will directly indirectly illuminate the sample can be selected to perform dark field microscopy.
To the extent that it is necessary to increase the number of light sources and adjoining light mixing elements to enable these illumination modalities, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the number of light sources and adjoining light mixing elements as taught by Fisch in order to obtain different modalities of illumination of the specimen such as bright field illumination, dark field illumination or right or left side only as taught by Fisch (see paragraphs [0038] and [0058]).
Note that there is no reason why one would necessarily have to alter the position of the central axis of the light exit surface that is already taught by Brukilacchio when adding additional light sources.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the first three paragraphs of page 4 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes the status of the claims, the previous grounds of rejection and points out the amendments that were made to independent claim 1. It is true that these limitations were present in original claims 3, 4 and 7. However, the limitation “wherein the bottom bases of the pyramidal frustum-shaped light mixing elements each have the external shape of a regular hexagon,” was only one choice amongst those presented in original claim 4: “wherein the bottom bases of the pyramidal frustum-shaped light mixing elements each have the external shape of an equilateral triangle, a square or a regular hexagon.” Likewise, the limitation “wherein three of the bottom bases of the light mixing elements come into contact at one point on a central axis of the light exit surface” is similar, but not identical to, one of two options in original claim 7: “wherein at least three of the bottom bases of the light mixing elements come into contact at one point on a central axis of the light exit surface, or wherein the bottom base of exactly one of the light mixing elements is situated centrally on a central axis of the light exit surface.” Lastly, it should be noted that original claim 7 did not depend from either claims 3 or 4.
Under the heading “Fisch” on pages 4 and 5 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that Fisch fails to teach the limitations “wherein the bottom bases of the pyramidal frustum-shaped light mixing elements each have the external shape of a regular hexagon,” and “wherein three of the bottom bases of the light mixing elements come into contact at one point on a central axis of the light exit surface”. The examiner agrees, the 35 USC §102 rejections of claims 1-4 and 7-10 as anticipated by Fisch have been withdrawn.
In the first paragraph under the heading “Brukilacchio” on page 5 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant summarizes some of the teachings of Brukilacchio, including the disclosure of rectangular, circular and octagonal apertures. The applicant notes that Brukilacchio “expressly contemplates” providing a small gap between adjacent output apertures to prevent cross-talk. No specific argument is made in this paragraph, however, it is worth noting that Brukilacchio also teaches that the shape choices include the genus of polygons (see claim 13), and that the suggested gap, was merely one of multiple options for reducing cross-talk, not a requirement.
In the paragraph spanning pages 5 and 6 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that Brukilacchio does not anticipate the newly claimed limitations “wherein the bottom bases of the pyramidal frustum-shaped light mixing elements each have the external shape of a regular hexagon,” and “wherein three of the bottom bases of the light mixing elements come into contact at one point on a central axis of the light exit surface.” With respect to the hexagonal shape, the new grounds of rejection above relies upon Li to remedy this deficiency. However, with respect to “three of the bottom bases of the light mixing elements come into contact at one point on a central axis of the light exit surface”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite, “three and only three” of the bottom bases of the light mixing elements come into contact at one point on a central axis of the light exit surface. Thus, Brukilacchio’s teaching of four regular polygonal bases coming into contact at one point on a central axis of the light exit surface still meets this limitation when taken individually. This teaching of the positioning of the central axis at the contact point between light mixing elements is still pertinent to the combination, when the shape of the polygon has been modified from a regular rectangle (i.e. a square) to a regular hexagon.
In the first full paragraph of page 6 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes that claims 3, 4 and 7 have been cancelled, and that claims 2, 5 and 6 depend from claim 1 and thus are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1. These arguments with respect to claim 1 have been addressed above.
In the first paragraph under the heading “Rejections of Claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. §103” on page 6 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes that claims 11 and 12 incorporate the structural limitations added to amended claim 1, by virtue of their dependence from claim 8. This is accurate.
In the second paragraph under the heading “Rejections of Claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. §103” on page 6 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes again that Fisch, which is relied upon for the limitations of claims 8 and 10, does not anticipate amended claim 1 and further notes that Vom is not relied upon for these new features, nor does it appear to meet them. These arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Fisch or Vom for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the last paragraph page 6 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant first explains how regular hexagons enable a tessellated formation that can substantially fill the light exit surface where exactly three hexagons meet at each three-way junction. In response to applicant's argument that regular hexagons can be tiled in a gap-free way with three adjacent hexagons meeting at a shared vertex, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In the instant case, both Brukilacchio and Li teach a close-packed tessellation, Brukilacchio teaches the use of regular polygons and Li teaches the use of hexagons. Thus the combination of references introduced above will necessarily also form a honeycomb of tiled hexagons where exactly three hexagons meet at each three-way junction by virtue of the hexagonal shape and close-packed configuration.
In the paragraph spanning pages 6 and 7 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant explains that the choice of having a three-way junction positioned on the central axis has the advantages of reducing direct illumination along the optical axis, reducing central reflected radiation, and facilitates bright-field reflected light illumination. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. In response to applicant's argument that the centrally located vertex has specific advantages, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In the instant case, Brukilacchio already teaches a central axis being located at the junction of regular polygons. Furthermore, original claim 7 presented both the option of the central axis being located at the junction of polygons and the option of the central axis being located at the center of exactly one light mixing element. Thus, although the specification discloses advantages of the currently claimed option, it cannot be said that the specification teaches away from the other option of a single centrally located light mixing element.
In the first full paragraph of page 7 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant points out that a hexagonal tessellation enables the light-exit surface to have a nearly circular geometry that more closely matches the typically circular cross section of the optical elements of a microscope. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a substantially circular light exit surface) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Secondly, the optical elements of the microscope shown in Figs. 5 and 6 are in the observation component beam path not the illumination beam path, so it is unclear why such a correspondence in shape is pertinent. Thirdly, the substantially circular shape of Fig. 2 has exactly one light mixing element at its center, not a junction of three.
Secondly in the first full paragraph of page 7 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that although Fisch teaches an overall circular source arrangement, Fisch does not anticipate the configuration now required by claim 1. This argument has been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Fisch for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the first nine lines of the last paragraph of page 7 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant acknowledges that Brukilacchio does teach a four-way junction of regular polygons meeting at the central axis, but argues that Brukilacchio does not teach the use of regular hexagons. This argument has been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Brukilacchio for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the last four lines of page 7 of 9 and the first line of page 8 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that “a rectangular or square exit geometry is less well matched to subsequent circular optical elements and can lead to nonuniform illumination of such elements, whereas the claimed regular-hexagonal arrangement permits the substantially filled, nearly circular exit surface described above.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Firstly, the examiner could not locate such a disclosure in the specification as filed. Counsel's assertion that an arrangement of squares cannot be substantially circular is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP §§ 2145, 716.01(c). All tessellations of polygonal shapes can only be approximately circular, but as the number of light mixing elements increases, any such tessellation can be arranged to more closely approximate a circle. Secondly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the light-exit surface is substantially circular) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In the first three lines of page 8 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that “Brukilacchio does not teach using the claimed geometry to obtain that combination of a nearly circular exit surface and an off-center central-axis arrangement.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Firstly, as noted above, a nearly circular exit surface is not in the claims. Secondly, also as noted above, Brukilacchio does teach a central-axis aligned with a junction or vertex, not the center of a light-mixing element. Thirdly, the combination of hexagonal bottom bases and the position of the central axis are met by the new combination of references introduced above for this new combination of features.
In the first sentence of the first full paragraph of page 8 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues “Stated in terms of the technical problem addressed by the application, Applicant sought to illuminate a sample for microscopic examination flexibly with different illumination modes while reducing undesired reflections and avoiding nonuniform illumination into subsequent circular optical elements.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Firstly, Fisch and Vom do teach illuminating a sample for microscopic examination flexibly with different illumination modes. Secondly, Brukilacchio does teach the central axis position that the applicant has stated enables reducing undesired reflections. Thirdly, the “circular optical elements” of Figs. 5 and 6 are not in the illumination beam path, just the beam splitter (which is not necessarily circular) and the sample (which is often on a rectangular slide or coverglass), thus there is no evidence of any “subsequent circular optical elements”. Lastly, in response to applicant's argument that the claimed invention achieves superior results, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In the second and third sentences of the first full paragraph of page 8 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant reiterates their arguments that neither Fisch nor Brukilacchio anticipate the invention as now claimed in claim 1. These arguments have been addressed above.
In the last sentence of the first full paragraph of page 8 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the “claimed combination of regular-hexagonal bottom bases with three bases meeting at the central axis therefore is not merely an arbitrary selection of a known shape, but provides the particular geometric relationship underlying the disclosed off-center arrangement and substantially filled, nearly circular light exit surface.” The new grounds of rejection above does not rely upon In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.) from MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B) to provide the rationale for the combination of references. Rather, the rejection relies on the fact that Brukilacchio teaches the genus of polygons of which hexagons are a low-number sided species and Li teaches that a hexagonal bottom base is an equivalent structure in the art to a rectangular bottom base. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a hexagonally based light mixing element for a square based light mixing element, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Li teaches that an ordinary skilled artisan would appreciate that the light pipe can have any cross-sectional dimensional shape including rectangular or hexagonal (see paragraphs [0053] and [0069]).
In the second and third paragraphs of page 8 of 9 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant concludes that the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the combination of features now recited in claim 1. The arguments underlying this conclusion have been addressed above.
Under the heading “Claim 6 amendment” the applicant notes that the amendment to claim 6 is supported by the application as filed and corrects an apparent error in the claim. The examiner agrees, this correction does not introduce new matter.
No further arguments are made after this paragraph.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
