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(s) (IDS) was/were filed on 27 December 2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and therefore are considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for the following reasons:
“… light radiation that was emitted by the light source, has…” on line 9 should be amended to “…light radiation that was emitted by the light source, which has…” to correct a grammatical error.
Lines 10-14 should be amended with appropriate punctuation or conjunctions to address a flow issue; examiner suggests: “…has interacted with the object, where in order to quantify the phase induced by the object, the light source, the imaging optical system and the optical spatial filter are arranged so that, when the object to be imaged is absent, the light radiation is focused on the area of greatest attenuation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 31, the claim recites “a semi-opaque coating”. While semi-opaque is not formally defined in the specification, it is not considered indefinite here as a formal definition of opaque in optics is well known by those of ordinary skill. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, “a semi-opaque coating” here is considered as any coating which allows at least some transmission of light through the coating.
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.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/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 it/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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites the limitation “imaging optical system” which uses the generic placeholder “system” and “wavefront sensor” which uses the generic placeholder “sensor” that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The limitation “imaging optical system” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a microscope comprising sample holders, objectives, mirrors, lenses (applicant’s specification page 13 ll. 17-20 and fig. 1A), and any equivalents of the microscope and its components thereof.
The limitation “wavefront sensor” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a digital camera and/or wavefront analysis mask (applicant’s specification page 14 ll. 5-7, fig. 1B, and dependent claim 33), and any equivalents thereof.
Regarding claim 41, the claim recites the limitation “thermal regulation module” which uses the generic placeholder “module” 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.
The limitation “thermal regulation module” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to an optical, electrical, or magnetic heater, e.g. a Joule heater (applicant’s specification page 8 ll. 9-11), and any equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 29-44 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.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites the limitation “the Fourier plane of the imaging optical system” on lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any Fourier plane of the imaging optical system will read on the claim. This should be corrected to “a Fourier plane”.
The claim recites the limitation “… for measuring, in the image plane, the intensity and the phase of the electromagnetic field” on lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be corrected to “… for measuring, in the image plane, an intensity and a phase of the electromagnetic field associated with the light radiation…”. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any intensity and phase will read on the limitation.
The claim recites the limitation “the phase induced by the object”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is unsure if this phase is the same or different from the previous phase from lines 8-9, but will interpret the limitation such that any phase will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites the limitation “the phase shift β” on line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 29 does not recite any shift in phase. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any phase shift will read on the claim.
The claim recites a complex transmittance equation where all terms except for β are defined within a required limitation — β is defined within an optional limitation and thus would be undefined in the claim omitting the optional limitation. This should be corrected for proper definition of all variables within the claim.
Regarding claim 32, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear whether the recited radius is to be treated as a required radius of the disc, or intended as an illustrative but non-limiting example. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that the exemplified limitations are optional limitations, see MPEP §2111.04 II.
Regarding claim 33, the claim recites the limitation “the optical path of the light radiation” on lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any optical path of the light radiation will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the spatial distribution of the gradient of the phase of the light radiation” on lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any spatial distribution of any gradient of any phase will read on the claim and notes that it is unclear whether “the phase of the light radiation” is intended as “the phase of the electromagnetic field associated with the light radiation” of claim 1 or as a different phase.
Regarding claim 34, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In this case, it is unclear whether the examples listed refer to “a mask” or “a mask comprising an array of lenslets”, and it is unclear whether the “thin diffuser” is intended as part of the example. If all named components are intended as referring to a mask comprising an array of lenslets, examiner suggests reciting “the wavefront analysis mask being selected from among a mask comprising an array of lenslets, the mask comprising an array of lenslets comprising a Shack-Hartmann mask, a modified Hartmann mask, and a thin diffuser” or something similar to remove ambiguity from the intended scope of the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that the exemplified limitations are optional limitations, see MPEP §2111.04 II.
Additionally, the term “thin” in “thin diffuser” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill would not be apprised of the degree to which the depth of a diffuser must be minimized in order to qualify as a “thin diffuser”. Examiner notes that the other term in the claim with a relative term “modified Hartmann mask” is a known optical component in the art and is not considered as indefinite in this case.
Regarding claim 36, the claim recites the limitation “the polarization of the light radiation” and “the temperature of said area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations in the claim. Examiner will interpret the claim such that any polarization of the light radiation and any temperature of any area will read on the limitation and is unclear what “area” is being referred to in the claim – is it the temperature of the area of greatest attenuation or some other physical area within the device?
Regarding claim 38, the phrase “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In this case, the claim recites “for example a layer comprising a polymer, a glass or titanium…” but the antecedent basis provided by the claim recites “at least one layer made of a material capable of inducing…”. Given the inconsistency with the antecedent basis for the layer, it is unclear whether the examples provided refer to the “layer made of material capable of inducing…”. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that the exemplified limitations are optional limitations, see MPEP §2111.04 II.
Regarding claim 40, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In this case, the claim recites a plurality of preferences for the layer of material having a non-zero thermo-optic coefficient (“in particular a liquid, for example glycerol, or a polymer, for example polydimethylsiloxane”). It is unclear whether the listed preferences and examples are intended as part of the claimed invention. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that the exemplified limitations are optional limitations, see MPEP §2111.04 II.
Regarding claim 41, the claim recites the limitation “the transmittance of said areas” and “the phase shift induced by said areas” on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any transmittance and any phase shift will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 42, the claim recites the limitation “the light generator” on line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any light generator will read on the claim.
Claims 31, 35, 37, 39, and 43-44 are rejected due to their dependence on the deficiencies of at least claim 29.
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)(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.
(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 29 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2003/0030902 A1by Ikutoshi Fukushima et al. (herein after “Fukushima”).
Regarding claim 29, Fukushima discloses a quantitative phase imaging device (Fukushima [0006] discloses a phase contrast microscope [quantitative phase imaging device]) comprising:
an imaging optical system for imaging an object in an image plane (Fukushima [0024] discloses a microscope [imaging optical system] comprising [0025] an illumination device which emits light to an object and [0027] forms an image of the object [imaging optical system for imaging an object]; fig. 2 [0147] shows a microscopic apparatus according to an example; [0148] discloses a CCD camera 61 as an image pickup device [imaging an object in an image plane]);
a light source for emitting light radiation (I) over at least part of the Fourier plane of the imaging optical system (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Fukushima fig. 2 and [0148] disclose a light source 11, where [0195] discloses light from the source forms a Fourier image on a pupil plane P of the objective lens [Fourier plane of the imaging optical system]);
an optical spatial filter extending in the Fourier plane of the imaging optical system and comprising an area in which the light radiation is attenuated to the least extent and an area in which the light radiation is attenuated to the greatest extent (Fukushima fig. 2, fig. 3B, and [0101] disclose a liquid crystal spatial light modulating element 41 [optical spatial filter], at which the Fourier image on the pupil plane P of the objective lens is formed [extending in the Fourier plane of the imaging optical system]; fig. 3B shows a ring pattern comprising a region of transmissivity 1 denoted by the white area and a region of transmissivity 0 denoted by the black region, denoting an area of greatest attenuation [i.e. transmissivity 0] and an area of least attenuation [i.e. transmissivity 1] – this is analogous to fig. 10F of the claimed invention, wherein the area of greatest/least attenuation takes form of a ring shape; examiner also notes an analogous spatial light modulating element 43 capable of modulating both intensity and phase of incident light – this appears in fig. 5),
a wavefront sensor for measuring, in the image plane, the intensity and the phase of the electromagnetic field associated with the light radiation that was emitted by the light source, has passed through the imaging optical system and the optical spatial filter and of which at least part has interacted with the object, in order to quantify the phase induced by the object (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Fukushima fig. 2 and [0148] discloses the CCD camera 61 as image pickup device 6, which is directed to parameter decision device 9; [0028] discloses the pupil modulating means (i.e. the spatial modulator 41 of fig.2 at the pupil plane P [optical spatial filter]) modulates at least one of phase, intensity, and/or direction of polarization of the luminous flux from the object Ob, where [0156] that information (including information of the object) is acquired by the CCD camera 61; [0057] discloses modulation adjustment via parameter decision device 9 based on parameters obtained via information of the object [wavefront sensor measures the intensity and phase of EM field associated with light radiation emitted from the light source having passed through the imaging optical system and optical spatial filter, in order to quantify the phase induced by the object]; the recitation of “in order to quantify the phase induced by the object” is a recitation of intended use for the device – under MPEP §2114 II, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art; since Fukushima has disclosed “the wavefront sensor measuring the intensity and phase of the EM field associated with light radiation emitted by the light source, passed through imaging optical system and optical spatial filter and of which at least part has interacted with the object”, it is reasonable to conclude the device of Fukushima can be operated in a manner to “quantify the phase induced by the object”), the imaging optical system and the optical spatial filter being arranged so that, when the object to be imaged is absent, the light radiation is focused on the area of greatest attenuation (Fukushima [0159] discloses that in the absence of the object, the ring pattern of fig. 3B is displayed so that the transmissivity is 0 in the luminous flux portion [light radiation focused on the area of greatest attenuation]).
Regarding claim 35, Fukushima discloses the device according to claim 29, and further teaches the device, comprising a microscope having an objective, the microscope optionally comprising a sample holder and/or the light source (Fukushima [0148], fig. 2, and claim 29 has disclosed the microscopic apparatus comprising a light source and an object Ob; [0148] discloses objective lens 3 [microscope having an objective, comprising the light source]) the optical spatial filter being remote from the microscope (Fukushima fig. 2 – the “microscope” comprising the light source, objective lens, and the object is considered as ending at the objective lens 3, in which case, the spatial light modulating element 41 arranged at a pupil plane is considered as remote from the microscope).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 30 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima in view of US 2021/0325301 A1 by Christina Porter et al. (herein after “Porter”).
Regarding claim 30, Fukushima discloses the device according to claim 29 but is silent to the device wherein the area of greatest attenuation having a complex transmittance t defined by the equation t = t0 · e-iβ , where 0 < t0 < 0.7, the amplitude to being measured over at least part of the spectrum of wavelength(s) of the light radiation emitted by the light source, and optionally the phase shift β being such that -1 rad [π] ≤ β ≤ 1 rad [π], in particular in order to amplify the signal over the phase in absolute terms.
However, Porter does address this limitation. Fukushima and Porter are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are optical systems for sample inspection via quantitative microscopy techniques.
Porter discloses the device of claim 29, “the area of greatest attenuation having a complex transmittance t defined by the equation t = t0 · e-iβ , where 0 < t0 < 0.7, the amplitude t0 being measured over at least part of the spectrum of wavelength(s) of the light radiation emitted by the light source” (Porter [0008] discloses that a complex transmittance for a beam transmitted through a medium [i.e. a sample, or in light of Fukushima a spatial modulator, and in particular the area of greatest attenuation] takes the form of t = T exp(iφt) for a phase shift φt of a wave having interacted with the sample [or material] with respect to the incoming beam; transmissivity takes on value between 0 and 100% of incident power measured by a detector after an incident beam interacts with a sample [the incident beam is measured over at least part of the spectrum of wavelengths of the light source, since its being measured by a detector after interaction with a sample]; while there is no negative exponent in Porter, a negative exponential is a well-known and widely used within optics in general and does not constitute patentable subject matter given the complex transmittance defined in Porter) and optionally the phase shift β being such that -1 rad [π] ≤ β ≤ 1 rad [π], in particular in order to amplify the signal over the phase in absolute terms (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; given “optionally”, this limitation is an optional limitation and is considered as not being required, see MPEP §2111.04 II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukushima to incorporate the area of greatest attenuation having a complex transmittance t defined by the equation t = t0 · e-iβ , where 0 < t0 < 0.7, the amplitude t0 being measured over at least part of the spectrum of wavelength(s) of the light radiation emitted by the light source and optionally the phase shift β being such that -1 rad [π] ≤ β ≤ 1 rad [π], in particular in order to amplify the signal over the phase in absolute terms as suggested by Porter for the advantage of enabling the determination of spatially-resolved, depth dependent material properties for regions on the sample (Porter [0014]), including for example phase change induced by particular region of the sample.
Regarding claim 36, Fukushima discloses the device according to claim 29 but is silent to the device¸ the area of greatest attenuation having a complex transmittance that varies, in particular depending on the polarization of the light radiation and/or the temperature of said area, and/or that can be modified by the user.
However, Porter does address this limitation.
Porter discloses the device according to claim 29, “the area of greatest attenuation having a complex transmittance that varies, in particular depending on the polarization of the light radiation and/or the temperature of said area, and/or that can be modified by the user” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Porter [0008] discloses that a complex transmittance for a beam transmitted through a medium [i.e. a sample, or in light of Fukushima a spatial modulator, and in particular the area of greatest attenuation] takes the form of t = T exp(iφt) for a phase shift φt of a wave having interacted with the sample [or material] with respect to the incoming beam; [0014] discloses that multiple images of the sample are collected with a varying “independent parameter”, including polarization [complex transmittance varies depending on the polarization of the light radiation]; the other “in particular” limitations are not considered as being required due to the “and/or” statements, see MPEP §2111.04 II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukushima to incorporate the area of greatest attenuation having a complex transmittance that varies, in particular depending on the polarization of the light radiation and/or the temperature of said area, and/or that can be modified by the user as suggested by Porter for the advantage of enabling the determination of spatially-resolved, depth dependent material properties for regions on the sample (Porter [0014]), including for example phase change induced by particular region of the sample.
Claims 31-32 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima in view of US 11,099,068 by Scott A Chalmers et al. (herein after “Chalmers”).
Regarding claim 31, Fukushima discloses the device of claim 29, but is silent to the device, the optical spatial filter comprising a transparent support and a semi-opaque coating partially covering the support, the area of greatest attenuation being defined by the superposition of the support and the semi-opaque coating.
However, Chalmers does address this limitation. Fukushima and Chalmers are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are optical systems for sample inspection via quantitative microscopy techniques.
Chalmers discloses the device of claim 29, “the optical spatial filter comprising a transparent support and a semi-opaque coating partially covering the support, the area of greatest attenuation being defined by the superposition of the support and the semi-opaque coating” (Chalmers fig. 4 discloses a spatially variable filter (SVF) 450 positioned in the optical path of a microscopic system, where col 9 ll. 5-10 disclose the SVF is embodied as a linear variable filter LVF; col 10 ll. 5-18 discloses the LVF is constructed via an interference coating graduated in one direction [semi-opaque coating] where col 10 ll. 21-34 discloses the LVF coatings are coated on quartz substrates [transparent support]; the interference coating is wedged in one direction [coating partially covering the support]; the coatings provide 90 transmission efficiency [i.e. semi-opaque as its not 100 transmission efficiency]; Fukushima has disclosed the area of greatest attenuation in claim 29 – given the context of Fukushima’s spatial modulator 41 and Chalmers’ linear variable filter, it would be obvious for the transparent support and coating to construct the area of greatest attenuation by a superposition of the support and semi-opaque coating).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukushima to incorporate the optical spatial filter comprising a transparent support and a semi-opaque coating partially covering the support, the area of greatest attenuation being defined by the superposition of the support and the semi-opaque coating as suggested by Chalmers for the advantage of a durable filter capable of withstanding damage when used with high optical power light sources (Chalmers col 10 ll. 18-34).
Regarding claim 32, Fukushima when modified by Chalmers discloses the device according to claim 31 and Fukushima further teaches the device, the semi-opaque coating being in the form of at least one disc having a radius rfs, preferably of less than 0.1·rp, where rp is the maximum radius of the disc within which the spatial frequencies collected in the Fourier plane are distributed, for example rfs ≤ 100 µm (Fukushima fig. 3B, [0165], and claim 29 have disclosed the spatial light modulating element 41 having parameters including a ring diameter, ring width, transmissivity in/out of the ring; [0057] discloses modulation adjustment via parameter decision device 9 based on parameters obtained via information of the object, which includes adjustment of the ring width (i.e. increasing ring width until it approaches the “form of a disc”); given the semi-opaque coating of Chalmers within claim 31, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill for the semi-opaque coating to take the form of at least one disc of radius rfs in keeping with the pattern generated by the spatial light modulating element 41 of Fukushima; as rp is within an optional limitation, it is considered as not being required, see MPEP §2111.04 II).
Regarding claim 38, Fukushima discloses the device of claim 29, but is silent to the device, the area of greatest attenuation and/or the area of least attenuation comprising at least one layer made of a material capable of inducing a phase shift between the radiation incident on said areas, respectively, and the radiation attenuated by said areas, for example a layer comprising a polymer, a glass or titanium dioxide, a stack of layers, or a metasurface.
However, Chalmers does address this limitation.
Chalmers discloses the device of claim 29, “the area of greatest attenuation and/or the area of least attenuation comprising at least one layer made of a material capable of inducing a phase shift between the radiation incident on said areas, respectively, and the radiation attenuated by said areas, for example a layer comprising a polymer, a glass or titanium dioxide, a stack of layers, or a metasurface” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Chalmers fig. 4 discloses spatially variable filter (SVF) 450 [analogous to the optical spatial filter] positioned in the optical path of a microscopic system, where col 9 ll. 5-10 disclose the SVF is embodied as a linear variable filter LVF; col 10 ll. 5-18 discloses the LVF is constructed via an interference coating; col 10 ll. 47-50 discloses the LVF is comprised of up to 150 stacked layers of thin films [at least one layer of a material, including a stack of layers]; Fukushima has disclosed the area of greatest attenuation in claim 29 as part of the optical spatial filter (i.e. as part of the LVF of Chalmers); the recitation of “material capable of inducing a phase shift between the radiation incident on said areas, respectively and the radiation attenuated by said areas” is a recitation of what the device does rather than what the device is – under MPEP §2114 II., this limitation does not differentiate the apparatus from the prior art; since Fukushima in view of Chalmers has disclosed the area of greatest attenuation comprising at least one layer of material and taught a cited example, it is reasonable to conclude the device of Fukushima in view of Chalmers can be operated in a manner to satisfy the limitation in question).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukushima to incorporate the area of greatest attenuation and/or the area of least attenuation comprising at least one layer made of a material capable of inducing a phase shift between the radiation incident on said areas, respectively, and the radiation attenuated by said areas, for example a layer comprising a polymer, a glass or titanium dioxide, a stack of layers, or a metasurface as suggested by Chalmers for the advantage of a durable filter capable of withstanding damage when used with high optical power light sources (Chalmers col 10 ll. 18-34).
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima in view of US 2024/0102865 A1 by Peter Pilarz et al. (herein after “Pilarz”).
Regarding claim 33, Fukushima discloses the device according to claim 29 and further teaches the device, the wavefront sensor comprising a light radiation detector along the optical path of the light radiation, in order to determine the spatial distribution of the gradient of the phase of the light radiation or of a signal proportional to said phase (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Fukushima fig. 2, [0148] and claim 29 above disclose CCD camera 61 as image pickup device 6, where [0053] and [0156] discloses obtaining information including the observed image being acquired by the CCD camera; the recitation of “in order to determine the spatial distribution of the gradient of the phase of the light radiation or of a signal proportional to said phase” is a recitation of intended use for the device - under MPEP §2114 II, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art; since Fukushima has disclosed the wavefront sensor comprising a light radiation detector along the optical path of the light radiation”, it is reasonable to conclude the device of Fukushima can be operated in a manner to determine the spatial distribution of the gradient of the phase of the light radiation or of a signal proportional to said phase).
Fukushima is silent to the device of claim 29, the wavefront sensor comprising a light radiation detector and a wavefront analysis mask arranged in front of the detector along the optical path of light radiation.
However, Pilarz does address this limitation. Fukushima and Pilarz are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are both directed to wavefront sensors with masks, diffusers, and/or cameras to obtain images.
Pilarz discloses the device of claim 29, “the wavefront sensor comprising a light radiation detector and a wavefront analysis mask arranged in front of the detector along the optical path of light radiation” (Pilarz [0006] and figs. 3A-3B disclose a lenslet array to focus subregions of a wavefront directly into a detector, wherein the lenslet array [wavefront analysis mask] is arranged in front of the detector along the optical path of a wave-front [optical path of light radiation]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukushima to incorporate the wavefront sensor comprising a light radiation detector and a wavefront analysis mask arranged in front of the detector along the optical path of light radiation as suggested by Pilarz for the advantage of increased light detection sensitivity and removing the requirement for a reference beam within the optical system, thereby reducing the complexity of the optical system (Pilarz [0006]).
Regarding claim 34, Fukushima when modified by Pilarz discloses the device according to claim 33. Fukushima is silent to the device according to claim 33, the wavefront analysis mask being selected from among a mask comprising an array of lenslets, for example a Shack-Hartmann mask, a modified Hartmann mask and a thin diffuser.
However, Pilarz does address this limitation.
Pilarz discloses the device according to claim 33, “the wavefront analysis mask being selected from among a mask comprising an array of lenslets, for example a Shack-Hartmann mask, a modified Hartmann mask and a thin diffuser” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Pilarz [0006] and figs. 3A-3B disclose a lenslet array to focus subregions of a wavefront directly into a detector, wherein the lenslet array [wavefront analysis mask] is arranged in front of the detector along the optical path of a wave-front [optical path of light radiation]; the lenslet array is disclosed as a Shack-Hartmann sensor [Shack-Hartmann mask]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukushima to incorporate the wavefront analysis mask being selected from among a mask comprising an array of lenslets, for example a Shack-Hartmann mask, a modified Hartmann mask and a thin diffuser as suggested by Pilarz for the advantage of increased light detection sensitivity and removing the requirement for a reference beam within the optical system, thereby reducing the complexity of the optical system (Pilarz [0006]).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima in view of Porter, and further in view of US 2021/0041219 A1 by Kilian Müller et al. (herein after “Müller”).
Regarding claim 37, Fukushima when modified by Porter discloses the device according to claim 36, but is silent to the device of claim 36, the area of greatest attenuation comprising a thermochromic and/or polarizing material.
However, Müller does address this limitation. Fukushima, Porter, and Müller are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are optical devices utilizing or detecting illumination beams of varying intensities, phases, or polarizations.
Müller discloses the device of claim 36, “the area of greatest attenuation comprising a thermochromic and/or polarizing material” (Müller fig. 2 and [0025] discloses a spatial light modulator (SLM) 220 which is configured to spatially modulate the phase and/or the polarization of an initial beam, the SLM being analogous to the spatial modulator of Fukushima [area of greatest attenuation comprising a polarizing material]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukushima in view of Porter to incorporate the area of greatest attenuation comprising a thermochromic and/or polarizing material as suggested by Müller for the advantage of incorporating an additional optical parameter able to be modulated with which to optically probe the sample under investigation.
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima in view of Chalmers, and further in view of “Temperature-dependent optical properties of some mixtures nematic liquid crystal” by Zhila Alipanah et al. (doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-16750-x) (herein after “Alipanah”).
Regarding claim 39, Fukushima when modified by Chalmers discloses the device according to claim 38, the area of greatest attenuation and/or the area of least attenuation comprising a layer of birefringent material.
However, Alipanah does address this limitation. Fukushima, Chalmers, and Alipanah are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are devices and/or methods based within optics and photonics technologies.
Alipanah discloses the device according to claim 38, “the area of greatest attenuation and/or the area of least attenuation comprising a layer of birefringent material” (Alipanah discloses a study of temperature dependence of optical properties of liquid crystals (see Alipanah title and page 1 paragraphs 1 and 3) (examiner notes that the spatial light modulating element 41 of Fukushima is a “liquid crystal spatial light modulating element”, and the liquid crystals of Alipanah are directly applicable to Fukushima’s modulating element); Alipanah page 2 equation 5 discloses defines the birefringence of the liquid crystals, and Alipanah characterizes the temperature dependency of the birefringence; given the Fukushima liquid crystal modulating element with areas of greatest/least attenuation and Chalmer’s disclosure of layers of material within the optical spatial filter, Fukushima when modified by Chalmer and Alipanah teaches the areas of greatest/least attenuation comprising a layer of birefringent material as Alipanah teaches liquid crystals birefringence characteristics).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukushima and Chalmers to incorporate the area of greatest attenuation and/or the area of least attenuation comprising a layer of birefringent material as suggested by Alipanah for the advantage of utilizing liquid crystals [with birefringence characteristics] to build compact, weighless, highly adaptable, and effective optical devices (Alipanah page 1 paragraph 1, excluding abstract).
Regarding claim 40, Fukushima when modified by Chalmers discloses the device according to claim 38, but is silent to the area of greatest attenuation and/or the area of least attenuation comprising a layer of a material having a non-zero thermo-optic coefficient, in particular a liquid, for example glycerol, or a polymer, for example polydimethylsiloxane.
However, Alipanah does address this limitation.
Alipanah discloses the device according to claim 38, “the area of greatest attenuation and/or the area of least attenuation comprising a layer of a material having a non-zero thermo-optic coefficient, in particular a liquid, for example glycerol, or a polymer, for example polydimethylsiloxane” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Alipanah page 1 paragraph 3, excluding abstract, discloses the investigation of temperature dependence of liquid crystals [analogous to those in the liquid crystal spatial light modulating element 41 of Fukushima], where the temperature dependence of at least the birefringence of the liquid crystals is explored in page 2 equation 8; since there is a temperature dependence demonstrated, the liquid crystals have a non-zero thermo-optic coefficient; given the Fukushima liquid crystal modulating element with areas of greatest/least attenuation and Chalmer’s disclosure of layers of material within the optical spatial filter, Fukushima when modified by Chalmer and Alipanah teaches the areas of greatest/least attenuation comprising a layer of a material having a non-zero thermo-optic coefficient as Alipanah teaches liquid crystals having said non-zero thermo-optic coefficient; the examples provided are considered optional limitations, see MPEP §2111.04 II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukushima in view of Chalmers to incorporate the area of greatest attenuation and/or the area of least attenuation comprising a layer of a material having a non-zero thermo-optic coefficient, in particular a liquid, for example glycerol, or a polymer, for example polydimethylsiloxane as suggested by Alipanah for the advantage of utilizing liquid crystals [with birefringence characteristics] to build compact, weighless, highly adaptable, and effective optical devices (Alipanah page 1 paragraph 1, excluding abstract).
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima in view of “Design and fabrication of a spatial light modulator using thermally tunable grating and a thin-film heater” by Mohammadreza Riahi et al. (doi: 10.1364/AO.48.005647) (herein after “Riahi”).
Regarding claim 41, Fukushima discloses the device according to claim 29, but is silent to the device comprising a thermal regulation module for modifying the temperature of the area of greatest attenuation and/ or the area of least attenuation in order to modify the transmittance of said areas and/or the phase shift induced by said areas.
However, Riahi does address this limitation. Fukushima and Riahi are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they utilize spatial light modulation for use within at least microscopy technologies.
Riahi discloses the device according to claim 29, “comprising a thermal regulation module for modifying the temperature of the area of greatest attenuation and/or the area of least attenuation in order to modify the transmittance of said areas and/or the phase shift induced by said areas” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Riahi discloses a temperature dependent and tunable spatial light modulator (see fig. 4(a)/(b) and fig. 5(a)), utilizing a segmented heating plate [thermal regulation module] coupled to a transparent grating and mask [coupled to the optical spatial filter, and thus used to modify the temperature of the areas of greatest/least attenuation]; the spatial light modulator was heated by applying voltage to end wires of the segmented heating plate [electrical heater, consistent with 112(f) interpretation]; the recitation of “in order to modify the transmittance of said areas and/or the phase shift induced by said areas” is a recitation of intended use for the device – under MPEP §2114 II., the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art; since Fukushima in view of Riahi has disclosed “a thermal regulation module for modifying the temperature of the areas of greatest/least attenuation”, it is reasonable to conclude the device of Fukushima in view of Riahi can be operated in a manner to “modify the transmittance and/or phase shift of/induced by said areas”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukushima to incorporate a thermal regulation module for modifying the temperature of the area of greatest attenuation and/or the area of least attenuation in order to modify the transmittance of said areas and/or the phase shift induced by said areas as suggested by Riahi for the advantage of a tunable spatial light modulator for use in at least microscopy, which can be altered in real time as desired by an operator to enable or suppress different diffraction orders for light projection (Riahi page 5647 col 2 paragraph 3 and figs. 1(c)-(e)).
Regarding claim 42, Fukushima when modified by Riahi discloses the device according to claim 41, and Fukushima further teaches the device, the area of greatest attenuation being in the form of a disc centered on the optical axis (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Fukushima fig. 3B, [0165] and claim 29 disclose the spatial light modulating element 41 having parameters including a ring diameter, ring width, and transmissivity in/out of the ring; [0057] discloses modulation adjustment via parameter decision device 9 based on parameters obtained via information of the object, which includes adjustment of the ring width (i.e. increasing ring width until it approaches the “form of a disc”); fig. 4 shows spatial light modulating element 41 centered on the optical axis), the light source comprising an additional optical system for generating Köhler illumination, the additional optical system being arranged between the light generator and the object in the propagation direction of the light radiation, in particular to collimate the light radiation incident on the object (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Fukushima [0382] discloses an additional embodiment of the microscopic apparatus of previously disclosed embodiments, wherein Köhler (misspelled “Kehler” within Fukushima – one of ordinary skill recognizes no “kehler illumination” as an ordinary term in the art, and would agree this is intended as Köhler or Koehler, missing the “o”) illumination is used in the illuminating device; [0383] discloses a collector lens 110A as the “additional optical system” arranged between the light generator [i.e. light source] and object Ob; the limitation “in particular to collimate the light radiation incident on the object” is a recitation of intended use for the device – under MPEP §2114 II, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art; since Fukushima when modified by Riahi has disclosed the additional optical system for generating Köhler illumination, it is reasonable to conclude that the device can be operated in a manner “to collimate the light radiation incident on the object” as claimed).
Claims 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima.
Regarding claim 43, Fukushima discloses a method for acquiring at least one digital image of a sample comprising an object by means of the device according to claim 29 (Fukushima has disclosed the entirety of claim 29 above; [0161], [0208], [0242], and [0400] discloses the observed image is obtained by the various embodiments of Fukushima, converted into digital data, and sent to image analysis device 8 and/or computer [method for acquiring at least one digital image of a sample comprising an object by means of device of claim 29]), the method comprising: a) emitting incident light radiation directed at the object using the light source (Fukushima [0151], in addition to the entirety of claim 29 above, discloses directing the luminous flux to the object Ob); (b) detecting, by the wavefront sensor, the entirety of the light radiation that has interacted with the object, transmitted by the imaging optical system and the optical spatial filter (Fukushima claim 29 above has disclosed the CCD camera as an image pickup apparatus 8 [wavefront sensor] which obtains image information ([0208]), where the entirety of the light radiation having interacted with the object, transmitted by the imaging optical system (at least part of the microscope) and the spatial light modulating element (optical spatial filter) [i.e. there is no beamsplitters within the system that divert any light away from the emitted radiation’s optical path]), and c) processing the signal detected in step b) to quantify a parameter selected from among the phase of the light radiation and/or a variation in the phase of the light radiation, and optionally to generate a digital image of said parameter (Fukushima fig. 2 and [0148], as disclosed in claim 29, discloses the CCD camera 61, the information captured by which is directed to image analysis device 8 and parameter decision device 9 [processing the signal in step b)] – at least one of phase, intensity, and direction of polarization of the luminous flux is modulated by the pupil modulating device [information captured by the CCD camera includes at least one of phase, intensity, and direction of polarization information]; the parameter decision device 9 has been cited within claim 29 to adjust parameters including ring diameter, ring width, transmissivity in the ring, etc.)
Fukushima does not explicitly disclose the method comprising: quantifying a parameter selected from among the phase of the light radiation and/or a variation of the phase of the light radiation, and optionally to generate a digital image of said parameter.
However, Fukushima does suggest this limitation.
Fukushima suggests or renders obvious “the method comprising: quantifying a parameter selected from among the phase of the light radiation and/or a variation of the phase of the light radiation” (Fukushima [0212] discloses that the spatial light modulating element 43 has parameters adjustable by the parameter decision device 9 including the ring width, ring diameter, etc. (same as previously disclosed within the embodiment of fig. 2), but in this embodiment, the phases in and out of the ring are added as adjustable parameters – therefore, [0213], the parameter values are determined by the parameter decision device 9 realized by the computer 81, including the phases in and out of the ring [quantifying a parameter selected from among the phase of the light radiation]) “and optionally to generate a digital image of said parameter” (this optional limitation is not addressed here).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate quantifying a parameter selected from among the phase of the light radiation and/or a variation of the phase of the light radiation, and optionally to generate a digital image of said parameter as suggested by Fukushima for the advantage of obtaining an observed image that is optimum in image quality, including resolution and fidelity based on the observed image acquired by the image pickup apparatus and feeding back parameter adjustments to at least the spatial light modulating element 41 (Fukushima [0136], applicable to a plurality of microscopes within its disclosure).
Regarding claim 44, Fukushima discloses the method according to claim 43, and further teaches the method, the processing in step c) further comprising quantifying the intensity of the light radiation and preferably generating a digital image of the intensity of the light radiation (Fukushima [0212] and claim 43 has disclosed above that parameters of the spatial light modulating element include ring width, ring diameter, and phases in and out of the ring; [0212] also discloses the parameter decision device includes in under its analysis/control the intensity of the light source, such that [0213] the intensity of the light source is determined by the parameter decision device 9 using quantities analyzed by the image analysis device [quantifying the intensity of the light radiation]), and preferably generating a digital image of the intensity of the light radiation (given “preferably”, this limitation is an optional limitation and is considered as not being required, see MPEP §2111.04 II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights