DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ogien (2022/0342194).
Regarding claim 1, Ogien discloses module intended to be associated with a microscope for full-field optical coherence tomography microscopic imaging of at least one sample (Figure 2, 200, tomographic microscopy device; [0093]), the module comprising an interference device (201, interferometric microscope) comprising a non-polarising beam splitter element (204, beam splitter), the device further comprising at least one first reflection surface (207, reflecting reference surface), the device thus being capable, during operation, of allowing at least one interference to be produced between: at least one reference wave obtained by reflecting the light emitted by a light source associated with the module on the reflection surface ([0109, 0112]) and at least one object wave obtained by backscattering the light emitted by said source onto the sample ([0109, 0112]), the non-polarising beam splitter element thus making it possible, during operation, when it is illuminated by the source, to form two arms ([0109]), namely a “reference arm” associated with the reflection surface ([0109] teaches a reference arm from 204, beam splitter, to 207, reflecting reference surface) and an “object arm” associated with the sample ([0109] teaches an object arm configured to receive 10, object, to be imaged), the device further comprising: a first adjustment unit arranged upstream of the non-polarising beam splitter element for allowing an illumination arm of the non-polarising beam splitter element to be modified during operation (212, cylindrical lens; [0110, 0126]), and/or at least one second adjustment unit arranged between the beam splitter element and the reflection surface for allowing the reference arm to be modified during operation (203, second microscope objective; [0152, 0153]).
Regarding claim 3, Ogien discloses module according to claim 1, comprising an objective associated with the reference arm (203, second microscope objective), the second adjustment unit comprising at least one additional reflection surface and at least one member for moving said objective relative to a frame of the module (Examiner notes that the second adjustment unit is referenced in the alternative in claim 1, thus interpreted as not being required to meet the limitations of claims 1 or 3).
Regarding claim 4, Ogien discloses module according to claim 3, wherein the additional reflection surface is also movable relative to a frame of the module (Examiner notes that the second adjustment unit is referenced in the alternative in claim 1, thus interpreted as not being required to meet the limitations of claims 1, 3, or 4).
Regarding claim 5, Ogien discloses module according to claim 3, wherein the movement member is configured to move the objective at least in a plane parallel to the plane in which the first reflection surface extends (Examiner notes that the second adjustment unit is referenced in the alternative in claim 1, thus interpreted as not being required to meet the limitations of claims 1, 3, or 5).
Regarding claim 6, Ogien discloses module according to claim 1, wherein the source is part of the module (210, light source, is considered to be part of 200, tomographic microscopy device).
Regarding claim 7, Ogien discloses module according to claim 1, comprising an acquisition device suitable for acquiring at least one signal resulting from the interference between the reference waves and the object waves (at least 222, sensor).
Regarding claim 8, Ogien discloses module according to claim 1, wherein the interference device comprises an optic arranged between the splitter element and a module output intended to be at least optically coupled to the microscope (221, tube lens, is provided between 204, beam splitter, and 222, sensor).
Regarding claim 9, Ogien discloses assembly comprising a microscope and a module according to claim 1 (Figure 2, 200, tomographic microscopy device).
Regarding claim 10, Ogien discloses assembly according to claim 9, wherein the microscope comprises a turret (209, assembly, can be considered to be a turret), the module being arranged in one of the compartments of the turret (Figure 2).
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogien (2022/0342194) in view of Hauger et al. (2009/0257065).
Regarding claim 2, Ogien discloses module according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first adjustment unit comprises at least two reflection surfaces, at least one of said reflection surfaces being movable relative to a frame of the module. Ogien and Hauger are related because both teach a microscope module.
Hauger teaches a module wherein the first adjustment unit comprises at least two reflection surfaces, at least one of said reflection surfaces being movable relative to a frame of the module (Figure 1, 2, first scanning mirror, 3, second scanning mirror; [0125] teaches changing rotational positions of 2 and 3, scanning mirrors).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Ogien to incorporate the teachings of Hauger and provide wherein the first adjustment unit comprises at least two reflection surfaces, at least one of said reflection surfaces being movable relative to a frame of the module. Doing so would allow for improved reduction of size by folding the light path, thereby allowing for a compact design.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogien (2022/0342194) in view of Equis et al. (2024/0053135).
Regarding claim 11, Ogien discloses assembly according to claim 9, but fails to teach an incubator supported by a stage of the microscope. Ogien and Equis are related because both teach a microscope assembly.
Equis teaches an assembly comprising an incubator supported by a stage of the microscope (Figure 7b, [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Ogien to incorporate the teachings of Equis and provide an incubator supported by a stage of the microscope. Doing so would allow for improved imaging over a longer duration while ensuring durability for the sample.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park (2025/00052560), Kato (2023/0266576), Ho (2022/0214532), Snel (2017/0199023), Kim (2014/0320626), and Joo (2013/0057935) disclose relevant microscope modules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights