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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are not of sufficient quality. For example, the text written into the boxes in Figures 2 and 12 is illegible. Examiner submits that the text presented in 995 within Figure 2 and S200 within Figure 12 is cut off and said text cannot be deciphered. Furthermore, several reference characters and elements within the drawings are overlapping in Figures 1, 2, and 10-12. Examiner reminds the applicant that reference characters, sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible. See MPEP § 608.02.
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 image processing controller, regions that transmit light is an array of apertures, regions that reflect the light is an array of reflectors, apertures, reflectors, array of rectilinear apertures or 2D symmetric apertures, slots, slits or pinholes in the mask that transmit the light, array of rectilinear or 2D symmetric reflectors, 1D apertures or 2D apertures, pitch between the apertures is proportional to the wavelengths of the light, fluorescent tags, algorithm, where the sample is at least 1 µm thick, and tissue section must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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 Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) are: in Claim 1, “an image processing controller, programmed to form a corrected image based on both the transmitted and the reflected light from the continuously moving sample,”
in Claim 6, “wherein the pitch between the apertures is proportional to the wavelengths of the light, such that some portions of the mask have one dimension suitable for one wavelength of light, and other portions have other dimensions based on other wavelengths of light,”
in Claim 10, “wherein the controller is configured to operate the at least one first detector and at least one second detector based on the speed of the sample stage,”
in Claim 13, “wherein the controller performs an algorithmic manipulation of the data to improve an attribute of the image, wherein the algorithm comprises either a weighted or non-weighted subtraction of data from the image,”
in Claim 14, “wherein the algorithmic manipulation comprises a weighted or non-weighted subtraction of the out-of-focus data from the in-focus data,” and
in Claim 15, “where the sample is configured for at least one of spatial proteomics, spatial transcriptomics and spatial genomics.”
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 recites the limitation "the image plane" in line 2 and the limitation "the continuously moving sample" in line 15. For examination purposes, these limitations will respectively be treated as “an image plane” and “a continuously moving sample”.
Claim(s) 2 recites the limitation "the at least one detector" in line 1. For examination purposes, this limitation will be treated as “the at least one first detector” or “the at least one second detector”.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 6 recites the limitation "the mask." For examination purposes, this limitation will be treated as "the at least one mask."
Claim(s) 6 recites the limitation "the wavelengths" in line 2. For examination purposes, this limitation will be treated as “wavelengths.”
Claim(s) 8 recites the limitation "the at least one light source" in line 1. For examination purposes, this limitation will be treated as “the light source.”
Claim(s) 10 and 13 recites the limitation "the controller." For examination purposes, this limitation will be treated as “the image processing controller.” Claim(s) 10 recites the limitation "the speed of the sample stage" in lines 2 and 3. For examination purposes, this limitation will be treated as "a speed of a sample stage."
Claim(s) 13 recites the limitation "the data" in line 2. For examination purposes, this limitation will be treated as “data.” Claim(s) 13 recites the limitation "the image" in line 2. For examination purposes, this limitation will be treated as “an image.” Claim(s) 13 recites the limitation "the algorithm" in line 3. For examination purposes, this limitation will be treated as "an algorithm."
Claim(s) 14 recites the limitation "the out-of-focus data from the in-focus data" in lines 2 and 3. For examination purposes, this limitation will be treated as "out-of-focus data from in-focus data."
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. These terms are not adequately defined, it is unclear how these terms should be interpreted, and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the claim limitations are and what would be needed to meet the claim limitations.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hillman US 20210173195 A1.
With respect to Claim 1, Hillman discloses a microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) for imaging a sample (subject 106; [0169]) having an intermediate image plane (intermediate image plane formed by the imaging forming module 126; [0169]) that is conjugate to the image plane (in combination with imaging forming module 126, designed to produce image of illuminated plane in subject 106; [0169]), comprising
an optical system (DRI system 100 including a first optical/illumination module 102, second optical module 103, and a third optical/detection module 104; [0155]) with a light source emitting light (illumination module 102 can provide input light 134 from primary illumination source 122, detection module 104 can receive light 135; [0155-156]), wherein the light (illumination module 102 providing input light 134 for scanning to second optical module 103 via one or more optical pathways, detection module 104 receiving light 135 reflected, scattered, and/or emitted by illuminated plane within subject 106 in response to incident light; [0155]) is directed by the optical system (DRI system 100; [0155]; fig. 1) to the sample (subject 106; [0169]) through the intermediate image plane (intermediate image plane formed by the imaging forming module 126 within third optical/detection module 104; [0169]; fig. 1);
at least one mask (beam conditioning module 120 including beam conditioning components, such as wavelength selective filters, polarization selective or altering components, graduated neutral-density filters, modulators, etc.; [0156]) disposed adjacent to a plane conjugate to (beam conditioning module 120 adjacent to plane conjugate to illuminated plane; as seen in fig. 1) the image plane (image of illuminated plane in subject 106; [0169]), wherein the at least one mask ([0156]) comprises regions that transmit the light and regions that reflect the light (wavelength selective filters for transmitting/reflecting light, fig. 8c illustrates detection arm setup using multiple wavelength selective beam splitters and that can be used as part of the image conditioning module 130 of fig. 1; [0049], [0236]);
at least one first detector (third detector 895; [0236]) that detects light from the sample (subject 106; [0169]) transmitted through (where beam splitter 890 is long pass beam splitter, λ1 may be greater than λ2, the transmitted light 891 is focused by lens 893 onto third detector 895 for imaging; [0236]) the at least one mask (e.g., wavelength selective beam splitter(s) 890; [0156], [0236]);
at least one second detector (second detector 898; [0236]) that detects light from the sample (subject 106; [0169]) reflected by (where beam splitter 890 is long pass beam splitter, λ1 may be greater than λ2, the reflected light 892 is then focused by lens 896 onto second detector 898 for imaging; [0236]) the at least one mask (e.g., wavelength selective beam splitter(s) 890; [0156], [0236]);
a moving stage (move subject 106 via a motorized stage; [0178]) configured to continuously (continuous range of scanning; [0150]) move the sample (subject 106; [0169]) during detection (detection module 104, comprising detectors 895 and 898, receiving light 135 reflected, scattered, and/or emitted by illuminated plane within subject 106; [0049], [0155], [0180], [0236]) by the first and second detectors (third detector 895, second detector 898; [0236]); and
an image processing controller (control module 150; [0178]), programmed to form a corrected image (control module 150 applying different analysis and image correction strategies to improve resolution, further correct for effects of scattering of light to reconstruct corrected image; [0180-181]) based on both the transmitted and the reflected light (transmitted light 891 is focused by lens 893 onto third detector 895 for imaging, the reflected light 892 is then focused by lens 896 onto second detector 898 for imaging, control module 150 combining obtained different color images; [0236]) from the continuously moving sample (move subject 106 via a motorized stage, subject 106 illuminated from multiple directions or sides, continuous range of scanning; [0150], [0178]).
With respect to Claim 3, Hillman discloses the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 1, wherein the regions that transmit light (where beam splitter 890 is long pass beam splitter, λ1 may be greater than λ2, the transmitted light 891 is focused by lens 893 onto third detector 895 for imaging; [0236]) is an array of apertures (image-forming module 130 including optics for shaping detected light or adjusting numerical aperture e.g., adjustable apertures for wavelength selection; [0171]) in the mask (beam conditioning module 120 including beam conditioning components, such as wavelength selective filters, etc.; [0156]) that transmit the light ([0236]) and wherein the regions that reflect the light (where beam splitter 890 is long pass beam splitter, λ1 may be greater than λ2, the reflected light 892 is then focused by lens 896 onto second detector 898 for imaging; [0236-239]) is an array of reflectors (image-forming module 130 including optics for shaping detected light or adjusting numerical aperture e.g., irises for wavelength selection; [0171]).
With respect to Claim 7, Hillman discloses the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 1, wherein the regions that transmit light (where beam splitter 890 is long pass beam splitter, λ1 may be greater than λ2, the transmitted light 891 is focused by lens 893 onto third detector 895 for imaging; [0236], other optical elements for spatially separating different wavelengths for simultaneous detection by one or more detectors are also possible; [0240]) is an array of microlenses (aberrations reduced or eliminated using known techniques for example aspherical lenses, GRIN lenses, multiple element optics, or other techniques; [0157]) that transmit and focus the light (aberrations arising in objective are compensated by transmitting light through lens assembly whose characteristics are selected to fully or substantially compensate aberrations introduced by objective; [0157]).
With respect to Claim 8, Hillman discloses the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 1, wherein the at least one light source (illumination module 102 can provide input light 134 from primary illumination source 122, detection module 104 can receive light 135; [0155-156]) generates light ([0155-156]; fig. 1) having multiple different wavelengths (primary illumination source 122 including plurality of light sources e.g., plurality of laser light sources having different center wavelengths; [0159]).
With respect to Claim 9, Hillman discloses the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 8, further comprising a wavelength dispersive or wavelength splitting or a grating element (e.g., wavelength selective beam splitter(s) 882; [0156], [0236]), which redirects some wavelengths ([0236]; fig. 8c) of the multiple different wavelengths (to provide multi-spectral imaging, multiple detectors and wavelength selective beam splitters used to image the different wavelengths; [0236]) of the light (figs. 1, 8c) into different trajectories than other wavelengths of the light (e.g., beam 881 is incident on first beam splitter 882 that allows light 894 having first and second wavelengths λ1, λ2 to pass therethrough but reflects light 884 having third wavelengths λ3; [0236]).
With respect to Claim 10, Hillman discloses the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 1, wherein the controller (control module 150; [0178]) is configured to operate (control module 150 applying many different analysis and image correction strategies e.g., imaging geometry, including optics and components of various modules of first through third modules 102-104, third/detection module comprising detectors as seen in fig. 8c, being modeled to map detecting elements detected during a scan; [0049], [0180], [0236]) the at least one first detector (third detector 895; [0236]) and at least one second detector (second detector 898; [0236]) based on the speed of the sample (subject 106; [0169]) stage (control module 150 configured to move subject 106 via a motorized stage; [0178]).
With respect to Claim 11, Hillman discloses the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 1, wherein the sample (control module 150 configured to move subject 106 e.g., via a motorized stage; [0178]) includes fluorescent tags (deconvolution by control module 150, using a standard e.g., a phantom with fluorescent beads; [0180-183]) which fluoresce at a different fluorescent wavelength (data acquired in 200 nm bead phantoms where different levels of scattering were added to the agarose background; [0152], [0614]; figs. 50a-b) from the light source (acquired using a 488 nm laser source; [0614]).
With respect to Claim 12, Hillman discloses the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 11, further comprising a dichroic mirror (separation module 112 including wavelength selective beamsplitter e.g., a dichroic mirror/filter or a dielectric mirror/filter or polarization selective beamsplitter so as to direct illumination and detection light along separate optical pathways; [0162]) that separates the light from the different fluorescent wavelength (system 100 employing two-photon imaging, selectively deactivating fluorophores in specific regions while leaving central focal spot active to emit fluorescence in subject 106; [0183]), such that the different fluorescent wavelength (data acquired in 200 nm bead phantoms where different levels of scattering were added to the agarose background; [0152], [0614]; figs. 50a-b) propagates along a different path than the light ([0162]; as seen in figs. 50a-b).
With respect to Claim 13, Hillman discloses the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 1, wherein the controller (control module 150; [0178]) performs an algorithmic manipulation of the data to improve an attribute of the image (control module 150 applying many different analysis and image correction strategies to improve resolution, contrast and spatial linearity, generate predicted spatially-varying point spread functions (PSF) for full deconvolution of resulting data, improving resolution and sectioning of resulting images, PSF can be estimated from a data set or form calibration using a standard e.g., a phantom with fluorescent beads or estimated using an automated algorithm; [0180]), wherein the algorithm comprises either a weighted or non-weighted subtraction of data from the image (via deconvolution by control module 150 may be applied before lateral shift adjustment or after lateral shift adjustment; [0180]).
With respect to Claim 14, Hillman discloses the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 13, wherein the algorithmic manipulation (control module 150 applying many different analysis and image correction strategies to improve resolution, contrast and spatial linearity, generate predicted spatially-varying point spread functions (PSF) for full deconvolution of resulting data, improving resolution and sectioning of resulting images, PSF can be estimated from a data set or form calibration using a standard e.g., a phantom with fluorescent beads or estimated using an automated algorithm; [0180]) comprises a weighted or non-weighted subtraction of the out-of-focus data from the in-focus data (via deconvolution by control module 150 may be applied before lateral shift adjustment or after lateral shift adjustment, improve resolution, contrast and spatial linearity; [0180]).
With respect to Claim 15, Hillman discloses the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 11, where the sample (subject 106; [0169]) is configured for at least one of spatial proteomics, spatial transcriptomics and spatial genomics (using DRI system 100, and by choice of GRIN lens, location of interrogated volumetric, planar, line, or point regions extended into substance of target material such as biological tissue; [0194], gradient-index GRIN lens used as part of focusing module 108 in simplified diagram of fig. 1; [0022]; figs. 2b-c).
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) 2, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillman US 20210173195 A1 in view of Cang et al US 20220197002 A1 (herein after “Cang”).
With respect to Claim 2, Hillman discloses the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 1, and the at least one detector (DRI system 100 including third optical/detection module 104; [0155] OR third detector 895, second detector 898; [0236]).
Hillman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the at least one detector comprises at least one TDI camera.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cang teaches methods and systems for multidimensional imaging ([0023]), comprising an image sensor including a confocal time delay and integration (TDI) line scan imaging system (image sensor 115; [0035]), wherein a sample includes a substrate that is between about 0.5 μm and about 1.5 μm thick (sample 105; [0043]), and biological specimens e.g., a nucleic acid, a protein, a cell, a virus, or a tissue (sample 105; [0046]). Cang further teaches a method of imaging a sample including illuminating a sample at a plurality of depths and detecting light from the sample (e.g., fluorescent excitation events, scattered light, transmitted light, or reflected light) at an active-pixel sensor array, and scanning the sample ([0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection module and subject of Hillman to include the technical features of a TDI imaging system, a biological sample being at least 1 μm thick, and the biological sample having a tissue section, for the purpose of achieving high S/N ratio and high confocality for producing high resolution images of a sample and implementing improved fluorescent microscopy systems and techniques, as taught by Cang ([0004], [0035]).
With respect to Claim 16, Hillman discloses the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 1.
Hillman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): where the sample (subject 106; [0169]) is at least 1 µm thick.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cang teaches methods and systems for multidimensional imaging ([0023]), comprising an image sensor including a confocal time delay and integration (TDI) line scan imaging system (image sensor 115; [0035]), wherein a sample includes a substrate that is between about 0.5 μm and about 1.5 μm thick (sample 105; [0043]), and biological specimens e.g., a nucleic acid, a protein, a cell, a virus, or a tissue (sample 105; [0046]). Cang further teaches a method of imaging a sample including illuminating a sample at a plurality of depths and detecting light from the sample (e.g., fluorescent excitation events, scattered light, transmitted light, or reflected light) at an active-pixel sensor array, and scanning the sample ([0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection module and subject of Hillman to include the technical features of a TDI imaging system, a biological sample being at least 1 μm thick, and the biological sample having a tissue section, for the purpose of achieving high S/N ratio and high confocality for producing high resolution images of a sample and implementing improved fluorescent microscopy systems and techniques, as taught by Cang ([0004], [0035]). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to make the sample at least 1 µm thick, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
With respect to Claim 17, Hillman in view of Cang teaches the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 16, where the sample (subject 106; [0169]; Hillman in view of Cang’s sample 105; [0043]) comprises a tissue section (Hillman in view of Cang’s sample including biological specimens e.g., a nucleic acid, a protein, a cell, a virus, or a tissue; sample 105; [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection module and subject of Hillman to include the technical features of a TDI imaging system, a biological sample being at least 1 μm thick, and the biological sample having a tissue section, for the purpose of achieving high S/N ratio and high confocality for producing high resolution images of a sample and implementing improved fluorescent microscopy systems and techniques, as taught by Cang ([0004], [0035]).
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillman US 20210173195 A1 in view of Moore US 20210239891 A1.
With respect to Claim 4, Hillman discloses the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 1, wherein the regions that transmit light (where beam splitter 890 is long pass beam splitter, λ1 may be greater than λ2, the transmitted light 891 is focused by lens 893 onto third detector 895 for imaging; [0236]) is an array of apertures (image-forming module 130 including optics for shaping detected light or adjusting numerical aperture e.g., adjustable apertures for wavelength selection; [0171]) in a mask (beam conditioning module 120 including beam conditioning components, such as wavelength selective filters, etc.; [0156]) that transmit the light ([0236]) and wherein the regions that reflect the light (where beam splitter 890 is long pass beam splitter, λ1 may be greater than λ2, the reflected light 892 is then focused by lens 896 onto second detector 898 for imaging; [0236-239]) is an array of reflectors (image-forming module 130 including optics for shaping detected light or adjusting numerical aperture e.g., irises for wavelength selection; [0171]; see claim 3).
Hillman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the regions that transmit light is an array of rectilinear apertures or 2D symmetric apertures, wherein the apertures comprise slots, slits or pinholes in the mask that transmit the light and wherein the regions that reflect the light is an array of rectilinear or 2D symmetric reflectors.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Moore teaches spatial and spectral filtering apertures and optical imaging systems including the same ([0007]), comprising central, transition, and peripheral regions of a beamsplitter 1204 that transmits and reflects light ([0007], [0099-100]; fig. 12a). Moore further teaches that a general outline of regions of wavelength dependent filter apertures may be illustrated as being round, with regions being rectilinear or any other shape, ([0063]; figs. 1, 12) and variable geometry wavelength dependent vignetting that involves stopping or blocking a portion of the rays is utilized ([0059]; fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the beam conditioning module of Hillman to include the technical features of rectilinear filter apertures having varying geometry and wavelength dependent regions for both transmitting and reflecting light, for the purpose of substantially equalizing point spread functions of more than one wavelength ranges, improving image acuity of a wavelength range, and exploiting vignetting as a means to control off-axis aberrations that would otherwise adversely affect image quality, as taught by Moore ([0006], [0015-18], [0051]).
With respect to Claim 5, Hillman discloses the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 1 (see claim 3).
Hillman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the regions that transmit light are arranged as plurality of 1D apertures or 2D apertures, wherein the plurality of apertures has a variable pitch between the apertures.
Hillman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the regions that transmit light is an array of rectilinear apertures or 2D symmetric apertures, wherein the apertures comprise slots, slits or pinholes in the mask that transmit the light and wherein the regions that reflect the light is an array of rectilinear or 2D symmetric reflectors.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Moore teaches spatial and spectral filtering apertures and optical imaging systems including the same ([0007]), comprising central, transition, and peripheral regions of a beamsplitter 1204 that transmits and reflects light ([0007], [0099-100]; fig. 12a). Moore further teaches that a general outline of regions of wavelength dependent filter apertures may be illustrated as being round, with regions being rectilinear or any other shape, ([0063]; figs. 1, 12) and variable geometry wavelength dependent vignetting that involves stopping or blocking a portion of the rays is utilized ([0059]; fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the beam conditioning module of Hillman to include the technical features of rectilinear filter apertures having varying geometry and wavelength dependent regions for both transmitting and reflecting light, for the purpose of substantially equalizing point spread functions of more than one wavelength ranges, improving image acuity of a wavelength range, and exploiting vignetting as a means to control off-axis aberrations that would otherwise adversely affect image quality, as taught by Moore ([0006], [0015-18], [0051]).
With respect to Claim 6, Hillman in view of Moore teaches the microscope (apparatus configurable as multiple mode DRI/confocal microscope, DRI system 100 used to image subject microscopically; [0017], [0155]) of claim 5.
Hillman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the pitch between the apertures is proportional to the wavelengths of the light, such that some portions of the mask have one dimension suitable for one wavelength of light, and other portions have other dimensions based on other wavelengths of light.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Moore teaches spatial and spectral filtering apertures and optical imaging systems including the same ([0007]), comprising central, transition, and peripheral regions of a beamsplitter 1204 that transmits and reflects light ([0007], [0099-100]; fig. 12a). Moore further teaches that a general outline of regions of wavelength dependent filter apertures may be illustrated as being round, with regions being rectilinear or any other shape, ([0063]; figs. 1, 12) and variable geometry wavelength dependent vignetting that involves stopping or blocking a portion of the rays is utilized ([0059]; fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the beam conditioning module of Hillman to include the technical features of rectilinear filter apertures having varying geometry and wavelength dependent regions for both transmitting and reflecting light, for the purpose of substantially equalizing point spread functions of more than one wavelength ranges, improving image acuity of a wavelength range, and exploiting vignetting as a means to control off-axis aberrations that would otherwise adversely affect image quality, as taught by Moore ([0006], [0015-18], [0051]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Schwertner US 20100108873 A1 discloses a method and assembly for optical reproduction with depth discrimination substantially similar to that of the claimed invention. Lippert et al. US 20150054937 A1 discloses a light microscope and method for image recording using a light microscope substantially similar to that of the claimed invention. Betzig et al. US 20190199969 A1 discloses structured plane illumination microscopy substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 12 August 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights