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 .
Status Of Claims
Claims 1-8, received 8/23/2024, are pending for examination.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 8/23/2024, 6/25/2025 were considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deck et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2003/0043380 A1 (hereafter Deck).
Regarding claim 1, Deck discloses a variable coherence illumination device (see at least figure 10) comprising:
a light source generator configured to emit a beam and configured to control a wavelength of the beam (see at least figure 10, element 502, paras. [0017], [0075]-[0078]);
a focusing lens configured to focus the beam (see at least figure 10, element 504);
a first diffuser on which a beam passing through the focusing lens is incident (see at least figure 10, element 506, paras. [0075]-[0078]);
a second diffuser facing the first diffuser and rotatable around a rotation axis of the second diffuser (see at least figure 10, element 508, paras. [0075]-[0078]);
a collimating lens configured to convert a beam scattered passing through the second diffuser into a parallel beam (see at least figure 10, element 516, paras. [0075]-[0078]); and
a stage connected to the first diffuser and movable in a first direction, which is a direction that is parallel to the rotation axis of the second diffuser (see at least figure 10, element 506, paras. [0072], [0075]-[0078]; It is noted that any element which is connected to diffuser element 506 to facilitate the movement in the first direction may be interpreted as being the stage),
wherein a focusing region on which the beam passing through the first diffuser is focused by the focusing lens is formed on the second diffuser, wherein the focusing region of the second diffuser is spaced apart from the rotation axis of the second diffuser (see at least figure 10, elements 504, 506, 508, 512, paras. [0072], [0075]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 2, Deck discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein a distance between the first diffuser and the second diffuser is changed when the stage moves in the first direction (see at least figure 10, elements 506, 508, paras. [0072], [0075]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 3, Deck discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein a phase of the beam passing through the second diffuser is changed when the stage moves in the first direction (see at least figure 10, elements 506, 508, paras. [0008], [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Deck discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein an area of the focusing region of the second diffuser increases as a distance between the first diffuser and the second diffuser increases, based on the first direction (see at least figure 10, elements 506, 508, paras. [0072], [0075]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 5, Deck discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the stage is movable in a second direction crossing the first direction (see at least figure 10, element 506, paras. [0078]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 7, Deck discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further comprising: a motor configured to provide power so that the second diffuser rotates (see at least figure 10, element 512, para. [0075]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deck et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2003/0043380 A1 (hereafter Deck) in view of Kvamme, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0152810 A1 (hereafter Kvamme).
Regarding claim 6, Deck does not specifically disclose that a distance in which the focusing region of the second diffuser is spaced apart from the rotation axis of the second diffuser is changed when the stage moves in the second direction.
However, Kvamme is related to Deck as also being drawn to a variable coherence illumination device (see at least the abstract and para. [0011] of Kvamme), wherein Kvamme teaches systems which include a translating and/or diffuser (see at least figure 1, elements 104, 106, 112, 111; paras. [0038]-[0040], [0046]-[0047] of Kvamme), wherein a diffuser may be displaced along a perpendicular direction such that light may be incident on different diffuser profiles (see at least figures 2A-2C, especially figure 2B, elements 254, 256, 262; paras. [0047]-[0050], [0057] of Kvamme).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the variable coherence illumination device of Deck to include the teachings of Kvamme so that a distance in which the focusing region of the second diffuser is spaced apart from the rotation axis of the second diffuser is changed when the stage moves in the second direction, for the purpose of choosing to illuminate different diffuser profiles for achieving desired illumination affects.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deck et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2003/0043380 A1 (hereafter Deck) in view of Liba et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0299251 A1 (hereafter Liba).
Regarding claim 8, Liba does not specifically disclose a microscope portion connected to the variable coherence illumination device.
However, Liba is related to Deck as also being drawn to an interference-based imaging technique including a moving diffuser for reducing speckle (see at least the abstract and figures 1-3, elements 132, 232, paras. [0003], [0080]-[0093] of Liba), wherein Liba teaches that the device may be part of a microscope (see at least paragraph [0184] of Liba).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the variable coherence illumination device of Deck to include the teachings of Liba so that a microscope portion is connected to the variable coherence illumination device, for the purpose of choosing a known type of illumination device to perform microscopy with controlled speckle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 7/21/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights