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 § 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amano (JPO 2004325482 A). An English machine translation has been previously provided for the foreign patent publication.
Regarding claim 1, Amano discloses a microscope focus control system (Fig 1, [0021], automatic focusing microscope) comprising an illumination source (1), and a polarization-sensitive detector ([0036], light receiving element 18 as first light detecting means; light receiving element 15 as the second light detecting means) positioned to receive a reflected beam from an interface having a reference refractive index and configured to detect polarization components of the reflected beam (Fig 1, [0036], polarizing beam splitter 4 transmits the S-polarized component and reflects the P-polarized component of the laser light beam reflected from the specimen 11), wherein an elongate aperture (3) is disposed proximal the illumination source (1) to generate a rectangular beam to impinge on the interface (Fig 1, [0036], imaging lens 17 is for condensing the laser beam) and a second aperture (13, 16) is located at a position corresponding to an unfocused region of the reflected beam from the interface so as to direct unfocused reflected light onto the polarization-sensitive detector (Fig 1, [0036], imaging lens 17 is for condensing the laser beam from which the protrusion has been removed by the shielding plate 16; shielding plate 13 is for removing a protruding portion of the laser beam reflected from the sample 11 other than half), such that changes in polarization components of the reflected beam are used as a measure of change in position of the interface relative to an objective ([0048], electric focusing unit 20 moves the stage 21 up and down in the optical axis direction of the objective lens 10 according to the drive signal from the signal processing system 19, and relatively changes the distance between the sample 11 and the objective lens 10. By doing so, a focusing operation is performed).
Regarding claim 4, Amano discloses wherein changes in polarization components in the reflected beam are used to generate signals to control movement of microscope equipment (Fig 1, [0037], a drive signal of an electric focusing unit 20 as a focus control unit).
Regarding claim 5, Amano discloses wherein the position corresponding to the unfocused region where the second aperture is located is further from the polarization-sensitive detector ([0036], 15, 18) than a position corresponding to a focused region of the reflected light (Fig 1, [0038], focusing operation is performed by relatively changing the distance from the objective lens 10).
Regarding claim 6, Amano discloses wherein an illumination beam from the illumination source is polarized (Fig 1, [0036], polarization beam splitter 4 transmits the S-polarized component and reflects the P-polarized component of the laser beam).
Regarding claim 10, Amano discloses wherein a magnifying lens (relay lenses 5, 6) is disposed between a focal point of the reflected beam and the polarization-sensitive detector (Fig 1, [0035], polarized light to linearly polarized light (S-polarized light) by the wavelength plate 7, and passes through the relay lenses 5 and 6 to 15 and 18).
Regarding claim 11, Amano discloses wherein the polarization-sensitive detector ([0036], 15, 18) is locatable proximal an imaging sensor associated with a microscope (Fig 1 shows that the detector of 15 and 18 is located adjacent to the signal processing system and observation optical system).
Regarding claim 12, Amano discloses wherein a dichroic mirror (Fig 1, dichroic mirror 8) is positioned between the interface and the polarization-sensitive detector (Fig 1 shows that mirror 8 is between 19 and the position of 15 and 18).
Regarding claim 13, Amano discloses wherein the illumination source (1) is of different wavelength to an imaging source associated with a microscope with which the system is to be used ([0006], light passes through the quarter-wave plate 104 to become elliptically polarized light, is reflected by the dichroic mirror 105 that reflects only the wavelength component of the laser light).
Regarding claim 14, Amano discloses further comprising a feedback control system responsive to changes in polarization components of the reflected beam to maintain a constant distance between an objective and the interface ([0020], motorized focusing unit 20, an autofocus microscope that can obtain a reliable focusing operation, can secure a precise focusing operation while suppressing a loss of light amount).
Regarding claim 15, Amano discloses further comprising an actuator moveable responsive to changes in polarization components of the reflected beam to maintain a constant distance between an objective and the interface ([0020], motorized focusing unit 20, an autofocus microscope that can obtain a reliable focusing operation, can secure a precise focusing operation while suppressing a loss of light amount).
Regarding claim 16, Amano discloses a microscope focus control system (Fig 1, [0021], automatic focusing microscope) according to claim 1 when retrofitted to a microscope system (Fig 1, [0037], an electric focusing unit 20 as a focus control unit).
Regarding claim 17, Amano discloses a microscope system (Fig 1, [0037], an electric focusing unit 20 as a focus control unit) incorporating a microscope focus control system according to claim 1 (Fig 1, [0021], automatic focusing microscope).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano (JPO 2004325482 A) in view of Fahrbach (20200341256). An English machine translation has been previously provided for the foreign patent publication.
Regarding claim 2, Amano discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the reflected beam is generated by Fresnel reflection. However, in a similar endeavor, Fahrbach teaches wherein the reflected beam is generated by Fresnel reflection (Fig 4a, [0161], measurement light 65b reflected by way of Fresnel reflection 141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to combine the optic device of Amano with the focusing components of Fahrbach for the purpose of decreasing blurring within a microscope detection system (Fahrbach, [0062]).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano (JPO 2004325482 A) in view of Pan (20100007953). An English machine translation has been previously provided for the foreign patent publication.
Regarding claim 3, Amano discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the reflected beam is generated by specular reflection from a metallic surface, the reflection exhibiting polarization dependence. However, Pan teaches wherein the reflected beam is generated by specular reflection from a metallic surface, the reflection exhibiting polarization dependence ([0006], polarization caused by reflection on the medium surface is different from the polarization caused by reflection on the metal surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to combine the optic device of Amano with the reflective components of Pan for the purpose of conveniently and effectively optimizing polarization within a microscope.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano (JPO 2004325482 A) in view of Kaneki (20170059842). An English machine translation has been previously provided for the foreign patent publication.
Regarding claim 7, Amano discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the illumination source is a laser diode. However, Kaneki discloses wherein the illumination source is a laser diode ([0060], reference light source 4 is a laser diode (LD) that emits infrared laser). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to combine the optic device of Amano with the laser components of Kaneki for the purpose of optimizing the level of light emission intensity within a microscope system (Kaneki, [0060]).
Regarding claim 8, Amano discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the illumination source generates wavelengths in the infra-red. However, Kaneki teaches wherein the illumination source generates wavelengths in the infra-red ([0060], light source 4 is a laser diode (LD) that emits infrared laser light). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to combine the optic device of Amano with the laser components of Kaneki for the purpose of optimizing the level of light emission intensity within a microscope system (Kaneki, [0060]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano (JPO 2004325482 A) in view of Steiner (20220390367). An English machine translation has been previously provided for the foreign patent publication.
Regarding claim 9, Amano discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the interface is an uncoated glass coverslip. However, Steiner teaches wherein the interface is an uncoated glass coverslip ([0184], uncoated glass coverslip). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to combine the optic device of Amano with the sample detection technique of Steiner for the purpose of enhancing the optical contrast of an image (Steiner, [0051]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art Amano fails to teach “an elongate aperture is disposed proximal the illumination source to generate a rectangular beam to impinge on the interface”. It is noted that the singular elements recited by the claims are not required by Applicant’s claim language to be exclusive. The preamble word “comprising” is open-ended and thus does not require the exclusivity of the recited elements, but allows the reference or combination of references to contain other elements as well. Additionally, “[t]he word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended.” In Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 74 USPQ2d 1586 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“like the term comprising,’ the terms containing’ and mixture’ are open-ended.”), Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368, 66 USPQ2d 1631, 1634 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The transition comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.”); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (MPEP §2111.02.). The prior art Amano discloses that the laser beam irradiated from a source is within an optical path that includes beam splitter and objective lens which has been interpreted to include a rectangular beam.
Applicant argues that the shielding plate within Amano does not form a rectangular beam. The current definition of a beam has been interpreted as a ray or shaft of light. 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). The recitation of "beam" of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. MPEP §2106. Applicant acknowledges that the prior art Amano does disclose a laser beam impinging on a directed source. Furthermore, Amano discloses a special polarization beam splitter is arranged on the optical path, delicate adjustment of the transmission surface and the reflection surface is required. This further details modification or adjustment of an incident through an optical system.
Applicant argues that the relative contributions of the p and s signals at the detector change when there is a change in position of the interface relative to the microscope objection. No special definition of contributions is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “signals”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. 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). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of, “signals,” which states/seems to imply that signals must be from a p and s modified source. Examiner's interpretation is both reasonable and not in conflict with the specification, and the limitation is met by the prior art.
As such, as best as Examiner understand, Amano continues to teach the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights