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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/20/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/21/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments and remarks, filed on 4/20/2026, have been entered. The prior art rejection is modified to address the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 210, 212-227, and 229-232 are pending with claims 210, 212-227, and 229-231 being examined and claim 232 is withdrawn.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 210 and 213-219 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (US 20160056577 A1; hereinafter “Hirose”; already of record) in view of Becker (DE 3720284 A1; hereinafter “Becker”; English translation previously attached; already of record).
Regarding claim 210, Hirose teaches an assembly (Hirose; Fig. 24; Abstract) comprising:
a stage having a sample positioning surface (Hirose; Fig. 25; para [212]; the module mount unit 112e of the first base member 110e has a protruding portion 113 formed thereon) configured to receive a sample cassette1 (Hirose; Fig. 24, 25; para [224]; the object unit 200u is placed on the module mount unit 112e); a lid (Hirose; Fig. 24; para [211]; the socket 100e) comprising an aperture (Hirose; Fig. 24; para [211]; the socket 100e illustrated in FIG. 24 includes a first base member 110e, a second base member 150e…the side surface of an opening 152e of the second base member 150e), wherein the lid and the stage have a coupled configuration and an uncoupled configuration (Hirose; para [211]; the socket 100e illustrated in FIG. 24 includes a first base member 110e, a second base member 150e, and a hook 190 serving as an engagement unit) such that, when in the coupled configuration, a recess is formed by at least an interior wall of the lid and the sample positioning surface, wherein the aperture defines an opening to the recess (Hirose; Fig. 24, 25, 28C; para [213]; As illustrated in FIG. 25, the presser 250 has an opening 252 formed therein; the examiner notes that in the closed configuration, the second base member of the socket is positioned against the object unit comprising the opening 252, interpreted as the recess, and the object unit is positioned on the module mount unit);
one or more light sources configured to direct light within the recess (Hirose; para [213]; the illumination light can be delivered to the object through the opening 252, and the image of the object can be captured by the imaging device 7 using the illumination light that has transmitted the object)2; and
a riser module operatively coupled to the sample positioning surface (Hirose; para [103]; The stage drive mechanism 330 changes the inclination of the stage 320 from a body 300B) and configured to provide a force against the sample cassette in the z-direction when the sample cassette is positioned on the sample positing surface and the lid is in the coupled configuration (Hirose; Fig. 11, 12; para [103]; The stage drive mechanism 330 changes the inclination of the stage 320 from a body 300B of the image acquiring apparatus 300 and/or the rotation angle of the stage 320 about an axis that passes through the central point of the stage 320). The Examiner notes that the rotation of the stage raises the cassette in the z-direction as seen in Fig. 9B.
1 The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the stage, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Hirose and the stage of Hirose is capable of “receiving a sample cassette”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed stage is not differentiated from the stage of Hirose (see MPEP §2114). Additionally, the examiner notes that the sample cassette is not positively recited and is intended use of the stage. Thus, the limitation regarding the sample cassette is not required.
2 The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the one or more light source, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Hirose and the apparatus of Hirose is capable of “directing light within the recess”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed one or more light source is not differentiated from the one or more light source of Hirose (see MPEP §2114).
Hirose does not teach wherein the one or more light sources positioned at an edge of the recess.
However, Becker teaches an analogous art of a device to illuminate a press-on plate (Becker; Abstract) comprising a stage (Becker; pp 8, para [1]; Fig. 3, 4; support plate 166) and one or more light sources (Becker; pp 5, para [1]; light source), wherein the one or more light sources positioned at an edge of a recess (Becker; pp 5, para [1]; pp 11, para [5]; lateral housing opening for incidence of light…window cutout 120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the one or more light sources of Hirose to be position the edge of the recess as taught by Becker, because Becker teaches that the light makes the entire surface visible without difficulty (Becker; Abstract; pp 5, para [1]).
Regarding claim 213, modified Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 210, wherein the one or more light sources are configured to edge light the sample cassette (Hirose; para [213]; the illumination light can be delivered to the object through the opening 252). The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the one or more light source, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Hirose and the apparatus of Hirose is capable of “edge lighting the sample cassette”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed one or more light source is not differentiated from the one or more light source of Hirose (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 214, modified Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 213, further comprising the sample cassette positioned on the sample positioning surface, wherein the sample cassette comprises a glass support (Hirose; Fig. 28C; para [96, 227]; transparent plate 8 (typically, a glass plate)…the module M is held between the support plate 210 and the presser 250, the back surface 8 b of the transparent plate 8 of the module M presses the upper plate 216). Examiner notes the sample cassette is interpreted as the module M/object unit 200.
Regarding claim 215, modified Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 214, wherein the one or more light sources are positioned such that emitted light from the one or more light sources is guided to a sample on the glass support (Hirose; Fig. 8C, 28C; para [96, 213]; the object 2 covered by an encapsulating medium 6 is sandwiched by the image sensor 4 and a transparent plate 8…the illumination light can be delivered to the object through the opening 252). Examiner notes that the module having a slice of a biological tissue as the object 2 (Hirose; para [98]).
Regarding claim 216, modified Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 215, wherein the one or more light sources are positioned such that the emitted light from the one or more light sources is guided through the glass support to the sample (Hirose; Fig. 8C, 28C; para [96, 213]; the object 2 covered by an encapsulating medium 6 is sandwiched by the image sensor 4 and a transparent plate 8…the illumination light can be delivered to the object through the opening 252). Examiner notes that the module having a slice of a biological tissue as the object 2 (Hirose; para [98]).
Regarding claim 217, modified Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 210, wherein the lid extends from a first end to a second end, wherein the lid is rotatably coupled to the stage via a hinge at the first end (Hirose; para [217]; the socket 100e in which the first base member 110e is connected to the second base member 150e using a hinge, the presser 250 may be connected to the support plate 210 using a hinge).
Regarding claim 218, modified Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 217, further comprising a catch, wherein the lid further comprises a latch at the second end, wherein the latch is configured to releasably couple to the catch when the lid is in the coupled configuration (Hirose; para [217]; the hooks 290 extend in a direction from the front surface 250f of the presser 250 to a back surface 250b of the presser 250). The examiner interprets the latch as the hook, and the catch is interpreted as the back surface of the presser.
Regarding claim 219, Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 217 (the one or more light source of Hirose is modified to be positioned at the edge of the recess as taught by Becker), wherein the one or more light sources are disposed adjacent to the hinge (Becker; Fig. 3, 4; pp 7, para [2]; The support plate 166 which can be pivoted about the axis 182 of the joints 180 also belongs to a pressing device 132 as a pressure plate).
Claim 212 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose in view Becker, and in further view of Fan (CN 107843641 A; hereinafter “Fan”; already of record).
Regarding claim 212, modified Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 210, with the one or more light sources.
Modified Hirose does not disclose wherein the one or more light sources comprise one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs).
However, Fan teaches an analogous art of detecting microorganisms on a glass plate (Fan; pp 2, para [8]) comprising one or more light sources (Fan; pp 2, para [8]; LED light strip embedded on the back of the lid). Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a one or more light source which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., collimated light) with other component(s) (i.e., LED strip), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., LED strip), and the results of the substitution (i.e., LED strip) would have been predictable. Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the one or more light source of Hirose with LED strip of Fan, since the result would have been predictable. Further, Hirose teaches that the light source need not be collimated.
Claim 220-224 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose in view Becker, and in further view of Cai (CN 105219637 A; hereinafter “Cai”; already of record).
Regarding claim 220, modified Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 217, with the recess.
Modified Hirose does not teach the assembly further comprising a cam plate, and the recess is further formed by at least a portion of the cam plate.
However, Cai teaches an analogous art of an assembly (Cai; Abstract) comprising stage having a sample positioning surface configured to receive a sample cassette (Cai; pp 6, para [1]; permanent seat 80 has multiple open-work 82, and the hole 41 of the corresponding test-tube stand 40 in its position), further comprising a cam plate (Cai; Fig. 4; pp 5, para [7]; cam part 32), and a recess is further formed by at least a portion of the cam plate (Cai; Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the assembly of Hirose to comprise the cam plate as taught by Cai, because Cai teaches that the cam part pivots the cover plate to close and open (Cai; pp 5, para [4]).
Regarding claim 221, modified Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 217, with the hinge.
Modified Hirose does not teach the assembly further comprising a cam pusher operably coupled to the hinge, wherein the cam pusher is configured to translate when the hinge is actuated.
However, Cai teaches an analogous art of an assembly (Cai; Abstract) comprising stage having a sample positioning surface configured to receive a sample cassette (Cai; pp 6, para [1]; permanent seat 80 has multiple open-work 82, and the hole 41 of the corresponding test-tube stand 40 in its position), further comprising a cam pusher operably coupled to the hinge, wherein the cam pusher is configured to translate when the hinge is actuated (Cai; Fig. 4; pp 7, para [2]; when this cover piece 30 closes, this cam part 32 can push against this top 52 and this push plate 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the assembly of Hirose to comprise the cam pusher as taught by Cai, because Cai teaches that the push plate positions the temperature control plate to hold the test tubes (Cai; pp 7, para [2]).
Regarding claim 222, modified Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 221 (the assembly of Hirose is modified to comprise the cam pusher as taught by Cai discussed above in claim 221), wherein the cam pusher translates within a cam plate (Cai; Fig. 4; pp 7, para [2]; cover piece 30 closes, this cam part 32 can push against this top 52 and this push plate 54).
Regarding claim 223, modified Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 221 (the assembly of Hirose is modified to comprise the cam pusher as taught by Cai discussed above in claim 221), further comprising one or more cams rotatably coupled to a cam plate, wherein the sample positioning surface defines a plane, and wherein each cam of the one or more cams is operably coupled to the cam pusher and configured to rotate about an axis perpendicular to the plane (Cai; Fig. 4; pp 7, para [2]; when this cover piece 30 closes, this cam part 32 can push against this top 52 and this push plate 54; the examiner interprets the push plate to be the cam that moves in a direction of the plane when the cam pushers are rotated).
Regarding claim 224, modified Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 223 (the assembly of Hirose is modified to comprise the cam pusher as taught by Cai discussed above in claim 221), wherein the plane is defined by an x- direction and a y-direction, and wherein a cam of the one or more cams is configured to provide a force on the sample holder in the x-direction (Cai; Fig. 4; pp 7, para [2]; when this cover piece 30 closes, this cam part 32 can push against this top 52 and this push plate 54; the examiner notes that the plane is interpreted as 2-dimensional, thus the push plate moves in the x-direction as the axis are not defined and the push plate moves in a single direction).
Claim 229 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose in view Becker, and in further view of Satyanarayana et al (US 20220404351 A1; hereinafter “Satyanarayana”; priority filed on 11/21/2019).
Regarding claim 229, modified Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 210, with the riser module.
Modified Hirose does not teach wherein the riser module comprises at least one spring.
However, Satyanarayana teaches an analogous art of a diagnostic system (Satyanarayana; para [3]) comprising a stage having a sample positioning surface configured to receive a sample cassette (Satyanarayana; Fig. 1; para [130]; the cartridge receptacle 160 can include: the platform 162 configured to receive and support the cartridge); a riser module operatively coupled to the sample positioning surface (Satyanarayana; para [140]; The set of springs 166 can thus: transition between the extended position to the retracted position to seat the cartridge 102 on the platform 162); wherein the riser module comprises at least one spring (Satyanarayana; Fig. 9B; para [140]; the cartridge receptacle 160 can include a set of springs 166). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the riser module of modified Hirose to comprise at least one spring as taught by Satyanarayana, because Satyanarayana teaches that spring raises and lowers the platform (Satyanarayana; para [140]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the riser module of modified Hirose for the riser module comprising springs as taught by Satyanarayana as this is a known and suitable arrangement for the riser module in the art. Further, it is a matter of engineering design to substitute the riser module in different ways, where the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected result, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Finally, one would have a reasonable expectation of success to substitute of the riser module of modified Hirose to the claimed limitation as Satyanarayana teaches this substitution is a known and suitable substitution in the art, because the riser module of Satyanarayana teaches raising the platform. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B).
Claim 230-231 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose in view Becker, and in further view of Corwin et al (US 20120135458 A1; hereinafter “Corwin”; already of record).
Regarding claim 230, modified Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 210, with the stage.
Hirose does not teach the assembly further comprising one or more temperature control apparatuses coupled to the stage and configured to adjust a temperature of the stage.
However, Corwin teaches an analogous art of an automated device for staining a biological sample (Corwin; Abstract) comprising stage having a sample positioning surface configured to receive a sample cassette (Corwin; Fig. 1; para [28]; a slide 16 is positioned in the slide-receiving member 12 and the gasket 14 is sandwiched between the slide 16 and the lid 18), one or more temperature control apparatuses coupled to the stage and configured to adjust a temperature of the stage (Corwin; Fig. 1; para [36]; A temperature control unit may comprise a thermoelectric stage 17). It would have been obvious to one of to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the assembly of Hirose to comprise the one or more temperature control apparatus as taught by Corwin, because Corwin teaches that the temperature control unit regulates the temperature of the bottom surface (Corwin; para [36]).
Regarding claim 231, modified Hirose teaches the assembly of claim 230 (the assembly of Hirose is modified to comprise the one or more temperature control apparatuses as taught by Ng discussed above in claim 230), wherein the one or more temperature control apparatuses comprise one or more thermoelectric modules (Corwin; para [36]; A temperature control unit may comprise a thermoelectric stage 17 for temperature control).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 225-227 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art Hirose, Becker, and Cai fail to teach the limitations of dependent claim 225, specifically to the limitation “wherein another cam of the one or more cams is configured to provide a force on the sample cassette in the y-direction”. Specifically, the additional cam would render the prior art inoperable as modified Hirose is modified by Cai to teach the cam pusher which moves a cam in a single direction. Claims 226-227 depend on claim 225.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed, 4/20/2026, have been considered and not found to be persuasive. The non-persuasive arguments are addressed below.
In the Applicant’s arguments, on pages 5-6, the Applicant argues that Hirose in view of Becker fails to teach “the riser module”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hirose teaches a riser module operatively coupled to the sample positioning surface (Hirose; para [103]; The stage drive mechanism 330 changes the inclination of the stage 320 from a body 300B) and configured to provide a force against the sample cassette in the z-direction when the sample cassette is positioned on the sample positing surface and the lid is in the coupled configuration (Hirose; Fig. 11, 12; para [103]; The stage drive mechanism 330 changes the inclination of the stage 320 from a body 300B of the image acquiring apparatus 300 and/or the rotation angle of the stage 320 about an axis that passes through the central point of the stage 320). The Examiner notes that the rotation of the stage raises the cassette in the z-direction as seen in Fig. 9B.
In the Applicant’s arguments, on pages 6-7, the arguments regarding the dependent claims merely refer back to the teachings of the references not meeting independent claim 210. However, the arguments regarding claim 210 are addressed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Austin Q Le whose telephone number is (571)272-7556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/A.Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights