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 .
Response to Amendment
The present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on 12/29/2025. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the specification and the claims. There is not any change being made to the abstract and the drawings.
A) Regarding the specification, applicant has submitted a substitute specification with its marked-up copy showing the changes to the specification, and a statement that the substitute specification does not contain any new matter; and
B) Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 1, 3-5 and 7 and canceled claims 2 and 8.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the specification and the claims as provided in the amendment of 12/29/2025, and applicant's arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 11-15, have been fully considered and resulted the following conclusions.
A) Regarding the claims, because applicant has canceled claims 2 and 8 and has not added any new claim into the application, thus as amended, the pending claims are claims 1, 3-7 and 9-20 in which claims 1, 3-5, 7and 10 of the elected Invention I are examined in the present office action, and claims 6, 9 and 11-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected Inventions II-IV.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 the objection to the drawings as set forth in the office action of 08/29/2025, applicant’s arguments provided in the amendment of 12/29/2025, page 11, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objection to the drawings set forth in the mentioned office action.
C) Regarding Claim Interpretation set forth in the office action of 08/29/2025, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 12/29/2025, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 12-13, have been fully considered and resulted the following conclusions:
C1) Regarding the generic placeholder “a first collision-detection device” as recited in claim 1, because applicant has not amended the claim and/or provided any argument to overcome the Claim Interpretation of such generic placeholders, thus the Claim Interpretation of the mentioned generic placeholder is repeated in the present office action, and
C2) Regarding the generic placeholders thereof ‘”a tension unit” recited in claim 1, “a tension mechanism” recited in claim 3 and “a device” recited in claim 5, the amendments to claims 3 and 5 and applicant’s arguments provided in the amendment of 12/29/2025, page 13, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the Claim Interpretation of such generic placeholders.
D) Regarding the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the office action of 08/29/2025, the amendments to the claims and applicant’s arguments provided in the amendment of 12/29/2025, pages 13-14, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argued that the claim 1 is amended to recite that the tension unit comprises a spring, see amendment in page 14. It is noted that the tension unit in the microscope provided by Gisler et al comprises a spring. In particular, in paragraph [0039], Gisler et al discloses that the tension unit (136, 140) comprises contact structures (160) which may be a spring-loaded electrically conductive contact.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., (position sensor is in contact with the tension unit) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicant’s arguments about the function of the sensor, see amendment in page 14, the examiner respectfully disagree and respectfully invite the applicant review the art of Gisler et al, in particular, paragraphs [0041] and [0076]-[0077] which mentions 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.
Drawings
The drawings contain fourteen sheets of figures 1, 2A-2C, 3A-3B, 4, 5A-5B, 6A-6D, 7A-7B, 8-9 and 10A-10C were received on 10/05/2022. These drawings are approved by the examiner.
Specification
The substitute specification filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
The lengthy specification which was amended by the amendment of 12/29/2025 has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation is a first collision-detection device” as recited in claim 1.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 2: on lines 4-5 of the claim, the feature thereof “wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect a tension state of the tensioning unit so as to detect the relative displacement based on a change of the tension state” repeats the same feature recited in its base claim 1 on lines 13-15. Should “other, and wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect a tension state of the tensioning unit so as to detect the relative displacement based on a change of the tension state.” Appeared in claim 2 on lines 4-5 be changed to --other.--?
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because the claim depends upon a canceled claim. Applicant should note that claim 2 was canceled, see amendment, the list of claims on page 4.
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];
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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The US Patent Nos. 8,397,395 and 9,459,091 are cited as of interest in that it discloses a mechanical system for supporting an objective lens wherein the mechanism comprises position sensor(s) and attached to a body of a microscope.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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