DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paxman et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0278386) in view of Reuss et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0244515).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 12, 13, 17, Paxman et al. disclose (Fig. 1B) a sample (10); a wavefront modulating element ([0043] adaptive optics) configured for modifying a wavefront of the light received from the sample to reduce aberrations of light emitted from the sample; a detector (50) configured for receiving the imaged light received from the sample, wherein the imaged light is imaged onto the detector, the detector being configured for generating images of the sample based on the light imaged onto the detector; a processor (90) configured to: control the system to introduce one or more known aberrations (110 or [0037]) into at least one image of the sample; based on at least two generated images of the sample, the generated images including a raw image ([0027] “image of the object 10 at the nominal focal plane”) and at one least image including a known aberration (“a phase-diverse image of the object 10 having a known amount of defocus” or [0028], [0037] phase plate), estimate an aberration ([0045]) of a wavefront of light emitted from the sample; reduce an aberration ([0043]) in the raw image based on the estimated aberration or control the wavefront modulating element . Paxman et al. further teach ([0025], [0065]) use in a microscope. Paxman et al. do not disclose a microscope system with a light source and objective lens as claimed. Reuss et al. teach (Fig. 8) a microscope system for imaging a sample (9) having a light source (6), a wavefront modulating element (21) as an adaptive optics to reduce aberration, the wavefront modulating element being before the objective or receiving light from the sample as claimed; an objective lens (8) as claimed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such a microscope system in the apparatus of Paxman et al. to conventionally implement and improve fluorescence microscopy as taught, known and predictable. As understood, the known defocus is a Zernike mode, as it relates to the wavefront distortion.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paxman et al. in view of Reuss et al., further in view of Plante et al. (U.S. Patent 4,655,563).
Regarding claims 2, 8, 14, 18, Paxman et al. in view of Reuss et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Paxman et al. and Reuss et al. do not specifically disclose the details of the deformable mirror as claimed. Plante et al. teach (Figs. 1-2) a wavefront modulating element includes a deformable mirror having multiple EM actuators (18) configured to locally deform a portion of a surface of the mirror and applying voltages (col. 5, lines 10-15) to the actuators to produce aberrations as claimed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such a deformable mirror configuration in the apparatus of Paxman et al. in view of Reuss et al. and Plante et al. to conventionally and effectively implement a deformable mirror as known and predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9-11, 15, 16, 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights