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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 5/13/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 reads, “the imaging device” in line 3. The only previously mentioned imaging device is the “mobile imaging device.” However, in every previous instance (three times in claims 1-2), the mobile imaging device is referred to as the mobile imaging device, so it’s unclear whether “the imaging device” is intended to refer to the mobile imaging device or to any imaging device. This lack of clarity causes the scope of the claims to be indefinite. For the sake of examination, it will be interpreted as referring to the mobile imaging device.
Claim 3 also mentions a “slide body.” It’s unclear whether this refers to the body of the previously mentioned slide or a component not previously mentioned that is related to the slide. This lack of clarity causes the scope of the claims to be indefinite. For the sake of examination, it will be interpreted as encompassing both interpretations.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Waal (US 20200197926 A1) in view of Xu (Automatic smartphone-based microfluidic biosensor system at the point of care; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, De Waal teaches a mobile kit for imaging microscopic organisms in a liquid sample, comprising:
a slide (300) having a liquid sample chamber (6) with a liquid sample inlet (20; paragraph 11; figure 4); and
a slide reader (figure 5) containing a lens (102) and configured to receive the slide and image the liquid sample chamber through the lens using a mobile imaging device (122; paragraph 78) that is coupled to the slide reader,
characterised in that:
the liquid sample chamber of the slide is a linear elongated liquid sample chamber (figure 4);
the slide reader comprises a track (track is suggested by the pictures and the movement axis along which the slide is moved; as a track is the route along which a thing moves [Oxford English Dictionary, “track (n.1),” June 2026, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/2890790006.] configured to receive the slide and guide movement of the slide along the track allowing the length of the linear elongated liquid sample chamber to be imaged through the lens (paragraphs 70, 124, and 88-89); and
a drive module (101) configured to move the slide along the track (paragraph 70).
PNG
media_image1.png
608
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
508
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As explained above, De Waal suggests but doesn’t explicitly teach the track.
Like De Waal (and like the instant application), Xu is directed to imaging of a liquid sample using a mobile phone and teaches using a track to receive and guide movement of the slide (figure 1C).
PNG
media_image3.png
362
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the slide reader comprise a track to receive and guide the slide in order to ensure precise positioning of the slide and thus minimize errors due to misalignment (also see additional prior art).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Waal and Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muramatsu (US 20150054935 A1; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 2, De Waal doesn’t explicitly teach a substantially planar attachment module having an upper surface, a lower surface, and an aperture extending between the surfaces, wherein the upper surface is configured for detachably attaching to a mobile imaging device and the lower surface is configured to detachably attach to the slide reader such that a lens of the mobile imaging device is aligned with the lens of the slide reader through the aperture.
Like De Waal (and like the instant application), Muramatsu is directed to microscopic imaging using a mobile phone and teaches a substantially planar attachment module (3) having an upper surface, a lower surface (figure 1), and an aperture (16) extending between the surfaces, wherein the upper surface is configured for detachably attaching to a mobile imaging device (10) and the lower surface is configured to detachably attach to the sample reader (figure 2) such that a lens of the mobile imaging device is aligned with the lens of the sample reader through the aperture (figure 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
636
510
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that it includes a substantially planar attachment module having an upper surface, a lower surface, and an aperture extending between the surfaces, wherein the upper surface is configured for detachably attaching to a mobile imaging device and the lower surface is configured to detachably attach to the slide reader such that a lens of the mobile imaging device is aligned with the lens of the slide reader through the aperture – in order to precisely align the mobile phone and therefore reduce errors due to misalignment.
Regarding claim 3, in the above combination the lower surface of the attachment module and upper surface of the slide reader are configured to correctly align the attachment module and slide body such that the imaging device is aligned with the lens of the slide reader through the aperture (Muramatsu, figure 1 and De Waal figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, in the above combination an upper surface of the slide body and lower surface of the attachment module are shaped or comprise corresponding magnets to guide the alignment of the attachment module and slide body (shaped to guide alignment as illustrated in Muramatsu, figures 1-4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Waal, Xu, and Muramatsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang (KR 101926059 B1; cited by Applicant) and Frumkin (US 20170042298 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the upper surface of the attachment module comprises a layer of synthetic setae.
Like the above combination (and like the instant application), Chang is directed to an attachment module for attaching a mobile phone to a microscopic imaging device comprising a slide and teaches the upper surface of the attachment module comprises a layer of adhesive (63).
PNG
media_image5.png
424
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the upper surface of the attachment module comprises a layer of adhesive in order to ensure that alignment is maintained during the operation of the imaging and therefore reduce errors due to misalignment.
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the adhesive is synthetic setae.
However, the above combination teaches that it is desirable to have the adhesive be able to stick and unstick multiple times (page 3 of attached translation of Chang). Frumkin is also concerned with the problem of an adhesive that allows a mobile phone to stick and unstick multiple times and teaches that having the adhesive be synthetic setae (gecko adhesive) allows the mobile phone to stick and unstick multiple times, easily, while leaving no marks (paragraphs 11-12 and 46).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the adhesive is synthetic setae in order to allow the mobile phone to stick and unstick multiple times, easily, while leaving no marks (also see additional prior art).
Additional Prior Art
WO 2020120640; cited by Applicant reads, “the module 70 includes a servo motor 72 and rotary actuator 73 positioned to abut a side of the slide 3 in the slotted seat that upon actuation moves the slide laterally along the slotted seat.” And “a slotted seat 23 for receiving a McMaster slide 3 “
PNG
media_image6.png
464
716
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
442
734
media_image7.png
Greyscale
CH 713814 A1 Reads ‘In the example in Fig. 2, a mobile phone 12 is placed on the mounting surfaces 13 with gecko adhesion effect. By the contact between the back surface of the mobile phone 12 and the attachment surfaces 13 with gecko adhesion effect, the mobile phone is secured against falling out of the notebook envelope 2.”
RD 628008 A teaches using synthetic setae to adhere a phone to a vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights