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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 19 and 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9, the word “polarisations” should be “polarizations”;
Claim 19, the claim limitations “a differential interference contrast microscope comprising one or both of: a birefringent optical element according to claim 1, and arranged to shear an illuminating beam of light in the microscope into two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations for illuminating a specimen placed in the microscope; and a birefringent optical element according to claim 1, and arranged to receive two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations from the specimen by transmission or reflection, and converge the two spatially separated beams of light into a single output beam of light for observation or detection” should be “a differential interference contrast microscope comprising first birefringent optical element according to claim 1, and arranged to shear an illuminating beam of light in the microscope into two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations for illuminating a specimen placed in the microscope; and a second birefringent optical element according to claim 1, and arranged to receive two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations from the specimen by transmission or reflection, and converge the two spatially separated beams of light into a single output beam of light for observation or detection”; and
Claim 20, the claim limitations “An orientation-independent differential interference contrast microscope comprising one or both of: an optical assembly according to claim 17, and arranged to shear an illuminating beam of light in the microscope into two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations for illuminating a specimen placed in the microscope; and an optical assembly according to claim 17, and arranged to receive two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations from the specimen by transmission or reflection, and converge the two spatially separated beams of light into a single output beam of light for observation or detection” should be “An orientation-independent differential interference contrast microscope comprising a first optical assembly according to claim 17, and arranged to shear an illuminating beam of light in the microscope into two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations for illuminating a specimen placed in the microscope; and a second optical assembly according to claim 17, and arranged to receive two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations from the specimen by transmission or reflection, and converge the two spatially separated beams of light into a single output beam of light for observation or detection”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-4, 10, 11, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DREVINSKAS US 20200408953.
Regarding claim 1, DREVINSKAS discloses a birefringent optical element (10) (para.6) for transforming an incident beam of light into two spatially separated output beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations (see at least figs.8 and 10 disclose a birefringent optical element has the same structural features as fig.12 of current application, so that it is capable of “for transforming an incident beam of light into two spatially separated output beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations”), in figs.1-11, comprising: a transparent substrate with an input face (12) for receiving the incident beam, an output face (14), and a uniform thickness between the input face and the output face (para.6 and fig.10), the substrate having a non-uniform birefringence in a plane parallel to the input face, the birefringence provided by a plurality of randomly positioned nanostructures (20) within the substrate (para.6, 53 and 77 and figs.2A-2C and 10) and configured to cause the incident beam to shear within the substrate into two output beams with orthogonal linear polarizations and wavefronts at an angle to one another so that the output beams leave the output face with a spatial separation along a shear direction parallel to the output face (see at least figs.8 and 10 disclose a birefringent optical element has the same structural features as fig.12 of current application, so that it is capable of “configured to cause the incident beam to shear within the substrate into two output beams with orthogonal linear polarizations and wavefronts at an angle to one another so that the output beams leave the output face with a spatial separation along a shear direction parallel to the output face”);
wherein each nanostructure has an oblate spheroidal shape with an elliptical cross-section in a plane parallel to the input face (para.6), the orientation of the elliptical cross-section giving a slow axis orientation of birefringence and a size of the oblate spheroidal shape giving a retardance value of birefringence, the orientation and the size varying between the nanostructures to provide the non-uniform birefringence of the substrate (para.87 and fig.8)(see at least figs.8 and 10 disclose a birefringent optical element has the same structural features as fig.12 of current application).
Regarding claim 2, DREVINSKAS discloses the non-uniform birefringence has a birefringence profile across the substrate in which the birefringence varies along a first direction which is parallel to the shear direction and is constant along a second direction which is orthogonal to the shear direction (see at least figs.8 and 10 disclose a birefringent optical element has the same structural features as fig.12 of current application).
Regarding claim 3, DREVINSKAS discloses the birefringence profile along the first direction has a varying retardance value and a non-varying slow axis orientation (see at least figs.8 and 10 disclose a birefringent optical element has the same structural features as fig.12 of current application).
Regarding claim 4, DREVINSKAS discloses the retardance value has a constant gradient along the first direction between opposite edges of the birefringence profile (see at least figs.8 and 10 disclose a birefringent optical element has the same structural features as fig.12 of current application).
Regarding claim 10, DREVINSKAS discloses the birefringence profile along the first direction has a non-varying retardance value and a varying slow axis orientation (see at least figs.8 and 10 disclose a birefringent optical element has the same structural features as fig.12 of current application).
Regarding claim 11, DREVINSKAS discloses the slow axis orientation has a constant gradient along the first direction between opposite edges of the birefringence profile (see at least figs.8 and 10 disclose a birefringent optical element has the same structural features as fig.12 of current application).
Regarding claim 15, DREVINSKAS discloses the birefringence profile has a square shape such that its size along the first direction is equal to its size along the second direction (see at least figs.8 and 10 disclose a birefringent optical element has the same structural features as fig.12 of current application).
Regarding claim 16, DREVINSKAS discloses the substrate comprises silica glass (para.25).
Claim(s) 17, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DREVINSKAS US 20200408953 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shribak NPL “Quantitative orientation-independent differential interference contrast microscope with fast switching shear direction and bias modulation”.
Regarding claim 17, DREVINSKAS does not explicitly disclose an optical assembly for transforming an incident beam of light into two spatially separated output beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations, comprising: a first birefringent optical element according to claim 1; a second birefringent optical element according to claim 1; and an optical rotator sandwiched between the first birefringent optical element and the second birefringent optical element.
Shribak discloses an optical assembly (1), in at least fig.1, for transforming an incident beam of light into two spatially separated output beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations (see fig.1), comprising: a first birefringent optical element (DIC1); a second birefringent optical element (DIC2); and an optical rotator (rotator) sandwiched between the first birefringent optical element and the second birefringent optical element for the purpose forming a beam-shearing assembly (see fig.1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an optical assembly for transforming an incident beam of light into two spatially separated output beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations, comprising: a first birefringent optical element; a second birefringent optical element according; and an optical rotator sandwiched between the first birefringent optical element and the second birefringent optical element as taught by Shribak in the differential interference contrast microscope of DREVINSKAS in order to have an optical assembly for transforming an incident beam of light into two spatially separated output beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations, comprising: a first birefringent optical element according to claim 1; a second birefringent optical element according to claim 1; and an optical rotator sandwiched between the first birefringent optical element and the second birefringent optical element for the purpose of forming a beam-shearing assembly.
Regarding claim 18, Shribak discloses the optical rotator is configured to provide 90° of rotation (see fig.1), and the first birefringent optical element and the second birefringent optical element are arranged with their optical axes orthogonal to one another (see fig.1) for the purpose forming a beam-shearing assembly (see fig.1). The reason for combining is the same as claim 17.
Regarding claim 20, DREVINSKAS does not explicitly disclose an orientation-independent differential interference contrast microscope comprising one or both of: an optical assembly according to claim 17, and arranged to shear an illuminating beam of light in the microscope into two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations for illuminating a specimen placed in the microscope; and an optical assembly according to claim 17, and arranged to receive two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations from the specimen by transmission or reflection, and converge the two spatially separated beams of light into a single output beam of light for observation or detection.
Shribak discloses an orientation-independent differential interference contrast microscope (OI-DIC), in at least fig.1, comprising: a first optical assembly (1) according to claim 17, and arranged to shear an illuminating beam of light in the microscope into two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations for illuminating a specimen placed in the microscope (see fig.1); and a second optical assembly (2) according to claim 17, and arranged to receive two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations from the specimen by transmission or reflection, and converge the two spatially separated beams of light into a single output beam of light for observation or detection (see fig.1) for the purpose of forming an orientation-independent differential interference contrast microscope.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an orientation-independent differential interference contrast microscope comprising one or both of: an optical assembly according to claim 17, and arranged to shear an illuminating beam of light in the microscope into two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations for illuminating a specimen placed in the microscope; and an optical assembly according to claim 17, and arranged to receive two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations from the specimen by transmission or reflection, and converge the two spatially separated beams of light into a single output beam of light for observation or detection as taught by Shribak in the an orientation-independent differential interference contrast microscope of DREVINSKAS for the purpose of forming an orientation-independent differential interference contrast microscope.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DREVINSKAS US 20200408953 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kusaka US 20010010591.
Regarding claim 19, DREVINSKAS does not explicitly disclose a differential interference contrast microscope comprising: a first birefringent optical element according to claim 1, and arranged to shear an illuminating beam of light in the microscope into two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations for illuminating a specimen placed in the microscope; and a second birefringent optical element according to claim 1, and arranged to receive two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations from the specimen by transmission or reflection, and converge the two spatially separated beams of light into a single output beam of light for observation or detection.
Kusaka discloses a differential interference contrast microscope, in at least fig.1, comprising: a first birefringent optical element (6), and arranged to shear an illuminating beam of light in the microscope into two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations for illuminating a specimen (9) placed in the microscope (see fig.1); and a second birefringent optical element (7), and arranged to receive two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations from the specimen by transmission or reflection, and converge the two spatially separated beams of light into a single output beam of light for observation or detection (see fig.1) for the purpose of forming a known differential interference contrast microscope of transmission type (para.4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a differential interference contrast microscope comprising: a first birefringent optical element, and arranged to shear an illuminating beam of light in the microscope into two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations for illuminating a specimen placed in the microscope; and a second birefringent optical element, and arranged to receive two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations from the specimen by transmission or reflection, and converge the two spatially separated beams of light into a single output beam of light for observation or detection as taught by Kusaka in the differential interference contrast microscope of DREVINSKAS in order to have a differential interference contrast microscope comprising: a first birefringent optical element according to claim 1, and arranged to shear an illuminating beam of light in the microscope into two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations for illuminating a specimen placed in the microscope; and a second birefringent optical element according to claim 1, and arranged to receive two spatially separated beams of light with orthogonal linear polarizations from the specimen by transmission or reflection, and converge the two spatially separated beams of light into a single output beam of light for observation or detection for the purpose of forming a known differential interference contrast microscope of transmission type.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 and 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “along the first direction, the retardance value is zero at a centre of the birefringence profile, increases to a maximum positive value at one edge of the birefringence profile, and decreases to a maximum negative value at an opposite edge of the birefringence profile”.
DREVINSKAS US 20200408953, KAZANSKY US 20220111470 (figs.1-1) and KAZANSKY US20220009028 (figs.1-9) either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “along the first direction, the retardance value is zero at a centre of the birefringence profile, increases to a maximum positive value at one edge of the birefringence profile, and decreases to a maximum negative value at an opposite edge of the birefringence profile”.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “the birefringence profile along the first direction has a first slow axis orientation between a first edge of the birefringence profile and a centre of the birefringence profile, and a second slow axis orientation which is orthogonal to the first slow axis orientation between the centre and a second edge of the birefringence profile opposite to the first edge”, along with other claim limitations. Claims 7 and 8 are depended on claim 6 so they are allowable for the same reason.
DREVINSKAS US 20200408953, KAZANSKY US 20220111470 (figs.1-1) and KAZANSKY US20220009028 (figs.1-9) either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “the birefringence profile along the first direction has a first slow axis orientation between a first edge of the birefringence profile and a centre of the birefringence profile, and a second slow axis orientation which is orthogonal to the first slow axis orientation between the centre and a second edge of the birefringence profile opposite to the first edge”, along with other claim limitations. Claims 7 and 8 are depended on claim 6 so they are allowable for the same reason.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “along the first direction, the birefringence profile has a retardance value Δ defined by Δ=αx−αX/2 and a slow axis orientation φ defined by φ=90°, x<X/2; φ=0°, x>X/2, where x indicates position along the first direction between 0 and X, X is a size of the birefringence profile along the first direction, and α is a derivative of retardance A with respect to x”.
DREVINSKAS US 20200408953, KAZANSKY US 20220111470 (figs.1-1) and KAZANSKY US20220009028 (figs.1-9) either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “along the first direction, the birefringence profile has a retardance value Δ defined by Δ=αx−αX/2 and a slow axis orientation φ defined by φ=90°, x<X/2; φ=0°, x>X/2, where x indicates position along the first direction between 0 and X, X is a size of the birefringence profile along the first direction, and α is a derivative of retardance A with respect to x”.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “the slow axis orientation is parallel to the second direction at a first edge of the birefringence profile, and rotates at a constant rate towards or to an orientation parallel to the first direction at a second, opposite edge of the birefringence profile”.
DREVINSKAS US 20200408953, KAZANSKY US 20220111470 (figs.1-1) and KAZANSKY US20220009028 (figs.1-9) either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “the slow axis orientation is parallel to the second direction at a first edge of the birefringence profile, and rotates at a constant rate towards or to an orientation parallel to the first direction at a second, opposite edge of the birefringence profile”.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “the non-varying retardance value is half the value of an intended wavelength of the incident beam”.
DREVINSKAS US 20200408953, KAZANSKY US 20220111470 (figs.1-1) and KAZANSKY US20220009028 (figs.1-9) either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “the non-varying retardance value is half the value of an intended wavelength of the incident beam”.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “along the first direction, the birefringence profile has a retardance value A defined by Δ=λ/2 and a slow axis orientation φ defined by φ=βx, where λ is an intended wavelength of the incident beam, x indicates position along the first direction, and β is the gradient magnitude of rotation of the slow axis orientation”.
DREVINSKAS US 20200408953, KAZANSKY US 20220111470 (figs.1-1) and KAZANSKY US20220009028 (figs.1-9) either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “along the first direction, the birefringence profile has a retardance value A defined by Δ=λ/2 and a slow axis orientation φ defined by φ=βx, where λ is an intended wavelength of the incident beam, x indicates position along the first direction, and β is the gradient magnitude of rotation of the slow axis orientation”.
Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KAZANSKY US 20220111470 (figs.1-1) and KAZANSKY US20220009028 (figs.1-9) can be a primary reference as well; and
Ishiwata US Patent 9594941 (at least figs.10 and 13) teach claim limitations of claim 19 as well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights