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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on 06/29/2026. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the claims. There is not any change being made to the abstract, the drawings and the specification.
Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 1, 3-4, 11 and 13.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, and applicant's arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 10-12, have been fully considered and resulted the following conclusions.
A) Regarding the claims, because applicant has not added/canceled any new claim into/from the application, thus the pending claims are claims 1, 3-7 and 9-20 (Note that claims 2 and 8 were canceled in the amendment of 2/29/2025) in which claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 10 of the elected Invention I are examined in the present office action, and claims 6, 9 and 11-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected Inventions II-IV.
Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 6, 9 and 11-20 will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
B) Regarding Claim Interpretation set forth in the office action of 03/27/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, page 10, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the Claim Interpretation of the generic placeholder of “a first collision-detection device” set forth in the mentioned office action.
C) Regarding the objection of claim 2 and the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the office action of 03/27/2026, the amendments to the claims and applicant’s arguments provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, page 10, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections of claim 2 and the rejection of claim 4under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the mentioned office action.
D) Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gisler et al (US Publication No. 2020/0241278) set forth in the office action of 03/27/2026, the amendments to the claims and applicant’s arguments provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, pages 11-12, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Thus, claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 10 are still rejected under the same art as provide din the mentioned office action.
Applicant’s argument that the Gisler et al does not disclose that the (at least one) sensor is in contact with the tensioning unit as is now recited in the claim 1, see amended claim 1 as provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026. The examiner offer the following opinion.
First, the feature that “the at least one sensor in in contact with the tensioning unit” as recited in amended claim 1 raise new matter/issue to the claim because the disclosure, as originally filed, does not provide support for such a feature; and
Second, while the amended claim recites that the at least one sensor is in contact with the tensioning unit; however, there is not any specific limitation/structure being provided in the claim to show what kind of “contact” between the at least one sensor and the tensioning unit. Applicant should note that an absence of specific limitation/feature of a feature recited in the claim then such feature is given a board interpretation. In this case, the so-called “in contact’ is understood as –a state or condition of communicating or meeting--, as defined in Dictionary. In that aspect then the communication between the position sensor (157) and the tensioning unit (136, 140) in the microscope provided by Gisler et al is a form/kind of “in contact” between the position sensor (157) and the tensioning unit (136, 140).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 10, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gisler et al (US Publication No. 2020/0241278, of record).
Gisler et al discloses a microscope with objective assembly crash protection.
a) Regarding present claim 1, the microscope with objective assembly crash protection as described in paragraphs [0015]-[0068] and shown in figs. 1-7 comprises the following features:
a1) a receptacle (130) mounted to a microscope body (110) of a microscope (100);
a2) a slide-in part (120) mounted on an objective (122) and is insertable onto the receptacle (130) into a locked position in which the slide-in part (120) and the receptacle (130) are interlocked with play between the slide-in part and the receptacle, see paragraphs [0059]-[0063] and figs. 1-5;
a3) a tension unit (136, 140) configured to brace the slide-in part and the receptacle against each other in order to eliminate play when the slide-in part is in a locked position, see paragraphs [0064]-[0068] and figs. 4-5. It is noted that the tension unit (136, 140) comprises contact structures (160) which may be a spring-loaded electrically conductive contact, see paragraph [0039]; and
a4) a collision-detection device (150) having a position sensor (157) configured to detect a relative displacement of the slide-in part (120) and/or the objective (124) with respect to the receptacle (130) wherein the relative displacement is in the form of an inclination, see paragraphs [0032]-[0042] and figs. 1-3 and 5-6, in particular, paragraphs [0040]-[0041] and figs. 2-3. It is noted that the position sensor is configured to sense a tension state of the tension unit to detect a relative displacement based on a change in tension state, see paragraphs [0041], [0076]-[0077].
Regarding to the feature that “the at least one sensor is in contact with the tensioning unit” as recited in present claim 1, lines 12-13, it is noted that there is not any specific limitation/structure being provided in the claim to show what kind of “contact” between the at least one sensor and the tensioning unit. Applicant should note that an absence of specific limitation/feature of a feature recited in the claim then such feature is given a board interpretation. In this case, the so-called “in contact’ is understood as --a state or condition of communicating or meeting--, as defined in Dictionary. In that aspect then the communication between the position sensor (157) and the tensioning unit (136, 140) in the microscope provided by Gisler et al is a form/kind of “in contact” between the position sensor (157) and the tensioning unit (136, 140).
c) Regarding present claim 3, the tension unit (136, 140) comprises a thrust element (136) and a tension mechanism (140) configured to urge the thrust element against the slide-in part (120) to brace the slide-in part (120) and the receptacle (130) against each other and the position sensor (157) is configured to sense a tension state of the tension unit to detect a relative displacement based on a change in tension state.
d) Regarding present claim 4, the tension unit (136, 140) comprises contact structures (160) which may be a spring-loaded electrically conductive contact, see paragraph [0039].
c) Regarding present claim 5, the receptacle (130) comprises a device (136) for positioning the slide-in part (120) in the receptacle (130) wherein the tension unit (136, 140) is provided in the device (136).
d) Regarding present claim 7, the sensor (157) is a position sensor.
e) Regarding present claim 10, the tension force provided by the tension unit (136, 140) is adjustable, see paragraph [0067], for example.
Conclusion
The US Patent No. 6,307,672 and the US Publication No. 2004/0169915 are cited as of interest in that it discloses a mechanical system for supporting an objective lens wherein the mechanism comprises sensor(s) for detecting movement(s) of an objective lens with respect to a sample/object located in a stage of a microscope.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights