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 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 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooke et al. (“Physics-Enhanced Machine Learning for Virtual Fluorescence Microscopy”, 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), IEEE, 10 October 2021, pages 3783-3793) - copy provided by Applicant.
With respect to claim 1, Cooke et al. disclose an array of light sources for a Fourier ptychographic imaging system (page 3785 - right column - last full paragraph), comprising at least two adjacent light sources which differ from each other in a property of light beams emitted from them (page 3786 - left column - 2nd and 3rd paragraphs) and are configured to illuminate a sample at different angles of incidence for reconstructing a single image of the sample in a reconstruction process using Fourier ptychography (page 3787 - right column - last full paragraph), wherein the property of light beams of each light source is configured to match the sample for increasing a contrast and/or a color or material information content in the reconstructed single image of the sample (page 3783 - right column - 2nd paragraph & page 3790 - paragraph bridging left and right columns).
With respect to claim 14, Cooke et al. disclose a method of performing Fourier ptychography (page 3785 - right column - last full paragraph), comprising: illuminating a sample at different angles of incidence by at least two adjacent light sources in an array of light sources, wherein the at least two adjacent light sources differ from each other in a property of light beams emitted from them (page 3786 - left column - 2nd and 3rd paragraphs), and the property of light beams of each of the at least two light source matches the sample for increasing a contrast in a single image of the sample to be reconstructed; capturing images of the sample by a camera via the light beams from the at least two adjacent light sources (page 3787 - right column - last full paragraph); and reconstructing the single image of the sample by using the captured images (page 3783 - right column - 2nd paragraph & page 3790 - paragraph bridging left and right columns).
With respect to claims 2 and 15, Cooke et al. disclose wherein the property of light beams comprises a wavelength, a bandwidth, a spectral profile and/or a polarization of the light beams (page 3787 - right column - last full paragraph).
With respect to claim 3, Cooke et al. disclose wherein the contrast in the reconstructed single image of the sample depends on an interaction property of the light beams of the respective light source with a given location of the sample (page 3787 - right column - last full paragraph).
With respect to claim 4, Cooke et al. disclose wherein the interaction property comprises an absorption, a refraction, a scattering, a diffraction and/or fluorescence of the light beams of the respective light source at the given location of the sample (page 3787 - right column - last full paragraph).
With respect to claim 5, Cooke et al. disclose wherein the interaction property depends on the property of light beams of the respective light source and a material and/or a geometry at the given location of the sample (page 3787 - right column - last full paragraph).
With respect to claim 9, Cooke et al. disclose wherein the array of light sources comprises a plurality of light sources, wherein the plurality of light sources form at least two clusters, wherein light sources within each cluster are adjacent to each other, and wherein the property of light beams of light sources in each cluster is configured to match a given location of the sample for increasing a contrast in the reconstructed single image of the given location of the sample (page 3787 - “Experiments”).
With respect to claim 10, Cooke et al. disclose wherein the array of light sources is configured to be selected based on a type of the sample (Fig. 3 & page 3786 - “Network Design”).
With respect to claim 11, Cooke et al. disclose a Fourier ptychographic imaging system comprising the array of light sources according to claim 1 (page 3786 - left column - 1st paragraph).
With respect to claim 12, Cooke et al. disclose a bandpass filter, a notch filter, a filter defining a complex spectral profile, and/or an edge filter arranged between the array of light sources and a camera sensor of the Fourier ptychographic imaging system (page 3788 - right column - 2nd paragraph).
With respect to claim 13, Cooke et al. disclose wherein the Fourier ptychographic imaging system further comprises an objective, wherein an objective aperture of the objective is dividable into a number of segments, wherein each segment of the objective aperture is associated with a light source or a cluster of light sources in the array of light sources (page 3788 - “HeLa Task”).
With respect to claim 16, Cooke et al. disclose wherein the array of light sources comprises more than three light sources (page 3787 - “Experiments”).
With respect to claim 17, Cooke et al. disclose wherein the array of light sources comprises more than five light sources (page 3787 - “Experiments”).
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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooke et al. (“Physics-Enhanced Machine Learning for Virtual Fluorescence Microscopy”, 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), IEEE, 10 October 2021, pages 3783-3793) - copy provided by Applicant - as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 6, Cooke et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the array of light sources comprises at least three light sources which are a first light source, a second light source and a third light source, wherein the first light source is adjacent to the second light source which is further adjacent to the third light source, wherein the first and second light sources differ from each other in a property of light beams emitted from them, wherein the second and third light sources differ from each other in a property of light beams emitted from them, and wherein the first and third light sources comprise a same property of light beams emitted from them. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Cooke et al. to have the array of light sources comprise at least three light sources which are a first light source, a second light source and a third light source, wherein the first light source is adjacent to the second light source which is further adjacent to the third light source, wherein the first and second light sources differ from each other in a property of light beams emitted from them, wherein the second and third light sources differ from each other in a property of light beams emitted from them, and wherein the first and third light sources comprise a same property of light beams emitted from them, as a matter of design choice, depending on the specific application being done.
With respect to claims 7-8, Cooke et al. do not specifically disclose wherein in the reconstruction process using Fourier ptychography, an image taken by means of the second light source comprises a lower weighting factor than images taken by means of the first and third light sources; and wherein in the reconstruction process using Fourier ptychography, an image taken by means of the second light source comprises the same weighting factor as images taken by means of the first and third light sources. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Cooke et al. to have in the reconstruction process using Fourier ptychography, an image taken by means of the second light source comprises a lower weighting factor than images taken by means of the first and third light sources; and wherein in the reconstruction process using Fourier ptychography, an image taken by means of the second light source comprises the same weighting factor as images taken by means of the first and third light sources, as a matter of design choice, depending on the specific application being done.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JURIE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am - 7:30 pm.
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, David J Makiya can be reached at 571 272-2273. 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.
/JURIE YUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
August 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights