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 .
Election/Restrictions
In response to the Election/Restriction mailed to applicant on 01/23/2026, applicant’s made an election without traverse of Invention I, Species I(B), in the reply filed on 03/23/2026.
As a result of applicant’s election, claims 1-2, 7-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 20-22 are examine din the present office action, and claims 3-6, 10, 15, 19 and 23-26 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected Invention and/or Species.
Applicant should note that claims 23-26 will be rejoined if the independent claim 23 have all features of the independent claim 1 if claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim. It is also noted that claims 3-6 and 10 will be rejoined if the independent claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim. Claims 15 and 19 will be rejoined if the independent claim 14 is later found as an allowable claim.
Drawings
The drawings contain thirty sheets of figures 1A-1B, 2-15, 16A-16D, 17-20, 21A-21C, 22, 23A-23C, 24A-24C, 25A-25F and 26-28 were received on 01/17/2023. These drawings are approved by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is unclear about the description thereof “an optical stage having;” on line 2 of the abstract. In other words, what element(s) does the so-called “an optical stage” have? A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 14: on line 3, what does applicant mean by “a second pair”? Should –of spots—be added after “pair” (line 3)? See the claimed language recited the first pair of spots being provided on line 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-2, 7-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons:
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by the feature thereof “a controller to control … the first direction” (lines 9-13).
a1) The mentioned feature makes the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a sample tilt of a first separation measurement of a pair of spots is determined by a plurality of images taken by an image sensor. Applicant is respectfully invited to review the mentioned feature recited in the claim, in particular, on lines 9-10, which recites that “a sample tilt … first pair of spots from one or more image taken by an image sensor” (examiner’s emphasis); and
a2) the mentioned feature makes the claim indefinite by “a first direction of the imaging” (lines 12). How “an imaging of the plurality of sample locations”, see the claim on lines 6-7, provides/defines the so-called “a first direction of the imaging”?
b) Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the similar reason as set forth in element a21) above.
c) Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because the feature thereof “the sample” (line 3) lacks a proper antecedent basis.
d) Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the similar reasons as set forth in element a) above.
e) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claims and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-2, 7-9, 14, 16-18 and 20-22, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buermann et al (EP 2 531 880 A0, submitted by applicant).
Buermann et al discloses an imaging system.
a) Regarding present claims 1 and 21, the imaging system as described in pages 17-43 and shown in figs. 1-16 comprises the following features:
a1) sample holder (102) having a surface for supporting a sample container (110) having a plurality of sample locations;
a2) an objective (118);
a3) an assembly (115) comprises one or more actuators physical coupled to the sample holder (102)to tilt the sample holder relative to the objective during an imaging of the plurality of sample holders to focus the imaging system onto a current sample position;
a4) a first light source (112) to project a first pair of spots on the sample container; and
a5) a controller (120) to control the one or more actuators to tilt the sample holder along a direct direction of the imaging based on a sample tilt determined from a first separation measurement of the first pair of spots from one or more images taken by or more image sensors (142, 144) at one or more of the sample locations.
b) Regarding present claims 2 and 7-9, the first light source projects a first pair of spots and a second pair of spots, see paragraph [0018] and fig. 16B, for example wherein the controller control the one or more actuators to tilt the sample holder along a direct direction of the imaging based on a surface profile of the plurality of focus regions on a surface of the sample holder which provide multiple images taken by at least one image sensors which map/profile is determined from a first separation measurement of the first pair of spots and a second separation measurement of the second pair of spots from one or more images taken by one or more of the sample locations.
c) Regarding present claim 22, the light source comprises a plurality of light sources, see paragraph [00132] and fig. 16B which plurality of light sources inherently having different wavelengths.
d) Regarding the method as recited in claims 14, 16-18 and 20, the method steps are implicitly met by the structure of the imaging system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. Claims 11-13, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buermann et al in view of Lundin (US Patent No. 10,191,269).
It is noted that while Buermann et al discloses that the stage controller (115) physically coupled to the sample holder to adjust the angle or orientation of an object to achieve a desired tilt or angle of the object, see paragraph [00134]; however, Buermann et al does not positively disclose that the one or more actuators used in the stage controller comprises a plurality of linear actuators as claimed. However, a mechanism having a plurality of linear actuators for adjusting the angle of orientation of an object is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the slide holder for an optical microscope provided by Lundin, see columns 5-6 and figs. 3. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the imaging system provided by Buermann et al by using a stage controller having a plurality of linear actuators as suggested by Lundin for the purpose of adjusting the sample (holder) by at least one direction in different areas/locations of the sample holder to achieve a desired tilt or angle of the sample holder.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The US Patent No. 11,054,624 which has a same assignee as that of the present US application is cited as of interest in that it discloses an imaging system. However, the claims of the US Patent do not have all features as recited in the claims of the present US application.
16. 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