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. 18/827,107 filed on 9/6/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “light blocker” in line 1 of claim 18 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: “170” in paragraph [0035].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 4-6, 11, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer et al. (US 2021/0223527, hereinafter, “Meyer”).
Regarding claim 1, Mayer discloses a transmitted light microscopy system ([0002], [0052]) comprising:
a light source 1 (Fig. 2, ([0104]);
a tapered light pipe 6 comprising a large end and a small end, the large end having a larger surface area than the small end, wherein either the large end or the small end may be positioned to receive light from the light source 1 (Fig. 2, [0105]); and
an objective lens 8 having a numerical aperture and positioned to receive output light from the tapered light pipe (Fig. 2, [0106]),
wherein when the tapered light pipe is positioned to receive the light from the light source and output the light, the output light has a cone angle that results in a numerical aperture that substantially matches the numerical aperture of the objective lens ([0105]), “the homogenizing rod (e.g., 6) adapts the numerical aperture NA of the light emitted by the LEDs (e.g., 1) for subsequent optical components (e.g., lens 8)”, this means that the cone angle of the output light from the light pipe 6 has substantially the same numerical aperture as that of the objective lens 8).
Regarding claim 4, Mayer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein when the small end of the tapered light pipe is positioned to receive the light from the light source (as it is seen in Fig. 2), the cone angle of the output light from the large end of the tapered light pipe is decreased in comparison to a cone angle of the received light.
This is evidenced by Cui (US 2024/0069321, hereinafter, “Cui”). Cui discloses a microscope (Fig. 2). In one embodiment, a tapered light pipe 126 is used to convey light reflected from sample 106 to sensor 108 ([0065]). Regarding the tapered light pipe 126, Cui discloses that the NA decreases from the entrance face to the exit face (as the exit face area increases from the entrance face area), [0069]. This means that the cone angle of the output light from the exit (large) face is decreased in comparison to a cone angle of the received light from the entrance (small) face.
Regarding claim 5, Mayer discloses the system of claim 4, wherein when the small end of the tapered light pipe is positioned to receive the light from the light source (as it seen in Fig. 2), the cone angle of the output light from the large end of the tapered light pipe is decreased proportional to the magnification factor of the tapered light pipe.
This is evidenced by Thorsten (US 4,722,587, hereinafter, “Thorsten”). In discussing a method for optically aligning a light emitting device within a housing (claim 1), Thorsten discloses that a tapered optical element, i.e., a fiber bundle rod 18, may be used to couple light into lens 32 (Fig. 1). In this arrangement, the tapered rod has a magnification factor (equal to the ratio of the entry and output faces), col. 4, lines 2-8. This means that the decrease in the cone angle from the exit face (as discussed above) is proportional to the magnification factor of the tapered light pipe.
Regarding claim 6, Mayer discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising at least one lens 2 to receive the light from the light source 1 and output the light towards the tapered light pipe 6 (Fig. 2, [0105]).
Regarding claim 11, Mayer discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a mechanism 35 for positioning either the large end or the small end of the tapered light pipe to receive the light from the light source (Fig. 1, 2, 5, 10, [0102], the light pipe 6 is part of the light source 35 which is part of a mechanism).
Regarding claim 14, Mayer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the mechanism is configured to rotate the tapered light pipe into at least one position comprising:
a position aligned with the optical axis, wherein the small end of the tapered light pipe is positioned to receive the light from the light source (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Mayer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the output light has a cone angle that results in an numerical aperture of approximately 80%, 81%, 82%, 83%, 84%, 85%, 86%, 87%, 88%, 89%, 90%, 90.5%, 91%, 91.5%, 92%, 92.5%, 93%, 93.5%, 94%, 94.5%, 95%, 95.5%, 96%, 96.5%, 97%, 97.5%, 98%, 98.5%, 99%, 99.5% or 100% of the numerical aperture of the objective lens ([0105], here, “adapt” is taken to mean a value approximately 100% of the NA of the objective lens).
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.
Claim 2-3, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer.
Regarding claim 2, Meyer discloses the system of claim 1.
Meyer does not disclose wherein when the large end of the tapered light pipe is positioned to receive the light from the light source, the cone angle of the output light from the small end of the tapered light pipe is increased in comparison to a cone angle of the received light.
In Meyer, the small end of the tapered light pipe 6 is positioned to receive the light from the light source 1 (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Meyer so that it is the large end of the tapered light pipe that receives the light from the light source (and transmits it to the small end), since, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Here, all the elements, i.e., the tapered light pipe, are present in the modification. Such modification would be consistent with the stated purpose of the light pipe of Mayer, i.e., adapt the NA of the light pipe with the NA of the subsequent lens (small or large).
Moreover, in the above modified Mayer, when the large end of the tapered light pipe is positioned to receive the light from the light source, the cone angle of the output light from the small end of the tapered light pipe is increased in comparison to a cone angle of the received light.
This is evidenced by Cui. Cui discloses a microscope (Fig. 2). In one embodiment, a tapered light pipe 126 is used to convey light reflected from sample 106 to sensor 108 ([0065]). Regarding the tapered light pipe 126, Cui discloses that the NA decreases from the entrance face to the exit face (as the exit face area increases from the entrance face area), [0069]. This means that the cone angle of the output light from the exit (large) face is decreased in comparison to a cone angle of the received light from the entrance (small) face, and reversely, the cone angle of the output light from the exit (small) face is increased in comparison to a cone angle of the received light from the entrance (large) face.
Regarding claim 3, Mayer discloses the system of claim 2, wherein when the large end of the tapered light pipe is positioned to receive the light from the light source (as it is the case in the modified Mayer, see above), the cone angle of the output light from the small end of the tapered light pipe is increased proportional to the magnification factor of the tapered light pipe.
This is evidenced by Thorsten. In discussing a method for optically aligning a light emitting device within a housing (claim 1), Thorsten discloses that a tapered optical element, i.e., a fiber bundle rod 18, may be used to couple light into lens 32 (Fig. 1). In this arrangement, the tapered rod has a magnification factor (equal to the ratio of the entry and output faces), col. 4, lines 2-8. This means that the increase in the cone angle from the exit face (as discussed above) is proportional to the magnification factor of the tapered light pipe.
Regarding claim 17, Meyer discloses the system of claim 11.
Meyer does not disclose wherein the mechanism is configured to position the small end of tapered light pipe closer to a substrate than the large end of the tapered light pipe.
In Meyer, the small end of the tapered light pipe 6 is positioned to receive the light from the light source 1 and it is the large end that is closer to the substrate 30 (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Meyer so that it is the large end of the tapered light pipe that receives the light from the light source (and transmits it to the small end), since, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Here, all the elements, i.e., the tapered light pipe, are present in the modification. Such modification would be consistent with the stated purpose of the light pipe of Mayer, i.e., adapt the NA of the light pipe with the NA of the subsequent lens (small or large). In the above modification, the small end of the tapered light pipe 6 is closer to the substrate than the large end.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Cui.
Regarding claim 7, Meyer discloses the system of claim 1.
Meyer does not disclose further comprising a lens assembly to receive the light from the light source and output the light towards the tapered light pipe.
Cui discloses a microscope (Fig. 2). In one embodiment, a tapered light pipe 126 is used to convey light reflected from sample 106 to sensor 108 ([0065]). In one embodiment, an assembly of lenses 118, 120 conveys the light from the light source 114 to the tapered light pipe 126 (Fig. 2, [0065], [0067]).
Both Meyer and Cui disclose microscopy systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Meyer so that a lens assembly relays the light to the tapered light pipe, for a better imaging onto the entry face of the tapered light pipe.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Ren et al. (US 2022/0299744, hereinafter, “Ren”).
Regarding claim 8, Meyer discloses the system of claim 1.
Meyer does not disclose further comprising a substrate for supporting a sample.
Ren discloses a transmitted light microscopy system (Abstract). In one embodiment, light 106 from light source 102 is conveyed onto sample 116 which is supported on a substrate (Fig. 1, [0044]).
Both Meyer and Ren disclose microscopy systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Meyer so that the sample 30 of Meyer ([0103]) is supported by a substrate, as taught by Ren, for being able to move the sample appropriately ([0045] in Ren).
Regarding claim 9, Meyer discloses the system of claim 1.
Meyer does not disclose further comprising a substrate holder configured to hold a sample.
Ren discloses a transmitted light microscopy system (Abstract). In one embodiment, light 106 from light source 102 is conveyed onto sample 116 which is held by a stage 118 (Fig. 1, [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Meyer so that the sample 30 is supported by a substrate which is held by a holder, e.g., a stage, as taught by Ren, for being able to transitionally and/or rotationally move the sample relative to other components of the system ([0045] in Ren).
Regarding claim 10, Meyer/Ren discloses the system of claim 9, further comprising a mechanism to move the substrate holder and position a sample supported by the substrate to be illuminated by the light output from the tapered light pipe ([0045] in Ren, transition/rotation of the stage is performed by a mechanism).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Kimura et al. (US 2014/0063495, hereinafter, “Kimura”).
Regarding claim 12, Meyer discloses the system of claim 11.
Meyer does not disclose wherein the mechanism is configured to move the tapered light pipe along an optical axis.
Kimura discloses a microscope system (Abstract). In one embodiment, an optical lens assembly 267, 268 is used to image light from light source 101 onto sample 202. A mechanism 103 is used to move the optical assembly along the optical axis (Fig. 3, [0038]).
Both Meyer and Kimura disclose microscopy systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Meyer so that the light pipe 6 which is part of optical assembly 5, 6 is moved along the optical axis, as taught by Kimura, for better matching of the NAs of the light pipe and the lens 8.
Regarding claim 13, Meyer/Kimura discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the mechanism comprises at least one spring configured to retract the tapered light pipe (Meyer
discloses a stage 33 movable along XYZ axes via springs, Fig. 1, [0119]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Ito et al. (US 2003/0173509, hereinafter, “Ito”).
Regarding claim 15, Meyer discloses the system of claim 14.
Meyer does not disclose wherein the mechanism comprises at least one cam and a cam guide.
Ito discloses an optical scanning stage (Abstract). In one embodiment, the scanning stage 3 is translated along direction 40 via a motor 10, cam 92 and cam guide 91 (Fig. 1, 7, [0020]-[0023], [0078]-[0080]).
Both Meyer and Ito disclose microscopy systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Meyer so that the light pipe 6 is moved (e.g., rotated) via a cam/cam guide mechanism, as taught by Ito, for providing a movement mechanism with high mechanical rigidity ([0081] in Ito).
Regarding claim 16, Meyer/Ito discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the tapered light pipe and the at least one cam are attached to a rotation shaft (rod 6 in Fig. 1 of Ito, which rotates, thus rotating the moveable optical element 6 of Meyer).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Karaki et al. (US 2011/0321204, hereinafter, “Karaki”).
Regarding claim 18, Meyer discloses the system of claim 1.
Meyer does not disclose further comprising a light blocker configured to limit light from entering the objective lens.
Karaki discloses a microscope system (Abstract). In one embodiment, an optical probe 300 is positioned close to sample 15 to receive light emitted by the sample (Fig. 26, [0141]-[0143]). The probe 300 includes a light blocker 303 to cover the probe 300 (Fig. 29a, [0151]).
Both Meyer and Karaki disclose microscopy systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Meyer so that a light blocker prevents light entering the lens 8, as taught by Karaki, for preventing stray light from entering the detector 37 for better imaging of the sample.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Hudnut et al. (US 2025/0093566, hereinafter, “Hudnut”).
Regarding claim 19, Meyer discloses the system of claim 1.
Meyer does not disclose wherein the tapered light pipe has a magnification factor of approximately 1.1×, 1.2×, 1.3×, 1.4×, 1.5×, 1.6×, 1.7×, 1.8×, 1.9×, 2.0×, 2.1×, 2.2×, 2.3×, 2.4×, 2.5×, 2.6×, 2.7×, 2.8×, 2.9×, 3.0×, 3.1×, 3.2×, 3.3×, 3.4×, 3.5×, 3.6×, 3.7×, 3.8×, 3.9×, 4.0×, 4.1×, 4.2×, 4.3×, 4.4×, 4.5×, 4.6×, 4.7×, 4.8×, 4.9×, 5.0×, 6.0×, 7.0×, 8.0×, 9.0×, or 10.0×.
Hudnut discloses an optical system for analyzing biological or chemical samples ([Fig. 1A, [0071]). In one embodiment, the system comprises a tapered light pipe 110 receiving excitation light to further convey it to a sample 130 (Fig. 6, 7, [0142], [0143]). The dimensions of the small and large faces of the light pipe are 3.3 mm x 4.4 mm and 7.2 mm x 9.1 mm (Table B), that is, the magnification factor is 4.51 (i.e., approximately 4.5x).
Both Meyer and Hudnut disclose sample analyzing systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Meyer so that the tapered light pipe 6 of Meyer has a magnification factor of approximately 4.5, as taught by Hudnut, for fitting the NA of the output light of the light pipe with the NA of a subsequent small lens (as the output cone angle decreases).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights