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 Pre-amendment
2. The present office action is made in response to the Pre-amendment filed on 10/18/2023. It is noted that in the Pre-amendment, applicant has made changes to the abstract, the specification and the claims. There is not any change to be made to the drawings.
A) Regarding to the abstract and the specification, applicant has submitted a substitute abstract and a substitute specification with marked-up copies showing the changes to the abstract and the specification, and a statement that the substitute abstract and substitute specification each does not contain any new matter, see Pre-amendment in page 2; and
B) Regarding to the claims, applicant has amended claims 1-18 and added a new set of claims, i.e., claims 19-20, into the application. Because there is not any claim being canceled from the application, thus the pending claims are claims 1-20.
Election/Restrictions
3. In response to the Election/Restriction mailed to applicant on 02/02/2026, applicant has made an election with traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on 03/30/2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the International Searching Authority, hereafter, ISA, did not reject the claims for lack of unity of invention; and claims of Groups I and II share specific technical features from the generic claim 1 that distinguish from the prior art, see Election of 03/30/3036, page 2 .
This is not found persuasive because of the following reasons.
First, the examiner respectfully disagree with applicant’s viewpoint and respectfully invite the applicant to review the Written Opinion of the ISA which a copy was submitted by applicant on 10/18/2023, in particular, pages 4-5, of the mentioned Written Opinion which rejects at least claim 1; and
Second, applicant is respectfully invited to review the claims with features recited in each group of Inventions I and II which features are different from each other and thus directed to different technical fields. In particular, claims 2-5, 8, 10-12, 14 and 16-19 of the Invention I are direct5ed to two doors and specific features regarding the structure and operations of the two doors in regarding to the microscope housing while claims 6-7, 9, 13, 15 and 20 of the invention II are directed to drawn to three doors and specific features regarding the structure and operations of the third door in regarding to the first two doors and the microscope housing.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
4. As a result of applicant’s election and the examiner’s response as provided above, claims 1, 6-7, 9, 13, 15 and 20 are examined in the present office action, and claims 2-5, 8, 10-12, 14 and 16-19 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to the non-elected Invention II.
Applicant should note that the claims 2-5, 8, 10-12, 14 and 16-19 will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
Priority
5. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
6. The drawings contain eleven sheets of figures 1-11 were received on 10/18/2023. These drawings are approved by the examiner.
Specification
7. The substitute abstract and the substitute specification filed on 10/18/2023 have been entered.
8. The lengthy specification which was amended by the pre-amendment of 10/18/2023 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
9. Claims 6-7, 15 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
The use of claimed language throughout the claims is not consistent. In particular, while applicant uses terms thereof “third door’s closed state” (claim 6 on line 3; claim 7 on line 2) and “second access door’s closed sate” (claim 6 on line 4); however, applicant uses terms thereof “third door opened state” (claim 15 on line 3) and “third door closed state” (claim 15 on line 4 and claim 20 on lines 6-7).
Should the term “door” in each of claims 15 and 20 be changed to --door’s-- for the purpose of maintain a consistence in claimed language through the claims?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. 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.
11. Claims 6-7, 13 and 20 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite due to the use of term thereof “when” in the feature thereof “a third door … second access door’s closed state” (lines 2-4).
Applicant should note that the term thereof "when" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Should the term “when” appeared in the claim on line 3 be deleted?
b) Claim 20 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 a) above.
c) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiency thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Honda et al (Japanese reference No. 2019-66819).
Honda et al discloses a microscopic apparatus.
The microscopic apparatus of the Second Embodiment as described by (see the attached English Machine Translation in pages 20-23 and figs. 8-9) by Honda et al comprises the following features:
a) a microscope stage (4) for supporting a sample to be examined;
b) a housing (81) for enclosing the microscope stage (4); and
c) the housing (81) comprises a first access door (812a) for opening/closing a first opening (811a) and a second access door (812b) for opening/closing a second opening (811b) which doors are located in different sides of the housing (81) whereby upon opening of both doors, the first and second access doors provide different ways of access to the microscope stage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. Claims 6-7, 9, 13, 15 and 20, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda et al in view of Nakamura et al (EP reference No. 2 031 429, submitted by applicant).
a) Regarding present claims 6 and 9, it is noted that while Hoda et al disclose that the housing (81) having two doors (812a, 812b) for providing different ways to access the sample inside the housing, they do not disclose that the housing comprises a third door for covering the second door as recited in the claims. However, an optical apparatus having a housing encloses a chamber wherein the housing comprises doors for providing access to the object located inside the chamber wherein the doors comprises a door which covers another door when the door in its closed state is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the culture monitoring system provided by Nakamura et al. In particular, in paragraphs [0026]-[0029] and shown in fig. 3, Nakamura et al discloses a housing (12) having an opening (10) and discloses a set of doors (14, 15) wherein the exterior door (15) covers the interior door (14) when both boors are in their closed states. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microscopic apparatus provided by Honda et al by using a third door for covering the second door as suggested by Nakamura et al for the purpose of protecting the second door from damage or is made by a transparent material.
b) Regarding present claims 7 and 13, in the combined product provided by Honda et al and Nakamura et al, the third door when used to cover for the door (812a) then the third door is embodied as a part of the front over of the housing (81) of the microscopic apparatus. It is noted that the exterior door (15) and the interior door (14) are coupled via mechanism is disclosed by Nakamura et al as can be seen in paragraph [0027].
c) Regarding present claim 15, in the combined product provided by Honda et al and Nakamura et al, an operator can attach notes of an operation on an exterior surface of the third door when the third door is in its opened state. It is noted that when the third door is in its closed state, i.e., cover the first/second door then the third door is a part of the housing for covering the sample stage having a sample disposed thereon.
d) Regarding present claim 20, the microscopic apparatus as disclosed by Honda et al defines a sample chamber which is bound by an upper side of the housing (81)m, the first door (812a), the second door (812b) as provided by Honda et al and the third door as provided by Nakamura et al when all doors are in their closed states.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
18. The US Patent No. 6,241,328 and the reference No. WO 2021/044543 are cited as of interest in that each discloses an optical system having a housing for supporting a stage support a sample wherein the housing comprises at least two doors for providing different ways tom access the sample.
19. 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