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
Applicant amendments filed 06/22/2026 have been entered. Applicant amendments overcomes each and every one of the claim objections set forth in the Office Action mailed 03/20/2026, the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 10-11, 14, 22-23, 25, 28-29, 31-32, 40, 43-44, 46-47, 53-55 remain pending in the application, with claims -2, 10-11, 14, 22-23, 25, 28-29, 31-32, 40, 43-44 being examined and claims 46-47, 53-55 being withdrawn pursuant to the election filed 01/06/2026.
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 10-11 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 10 recites “further comprising a temperature control apparatus coupled to the sample positioning plate.” on lines 1-2, where it is unclear if this temperature control apparatus is the same or different from the temperature control apparatus now recited on lines 9-10 of claim 1.
[0025] of the instant specification describes a temperature control apparatus 126 that is disposed between the z-riser module and sample positioning plate 110 where the temperature control apparatus 126 contacts the sample positioning plate 110 below at least a portion of each raised portion 110a-110c. [0017] describes that the sample positioning plate 110 includes a first, second, and third raised portion 110a-110c.
Therefore, for examination it will be interpreted that the temperature control apparatus of claim 10 is the same as the temperature control apparatus described in claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected by virtue of being dependent on claim 10.
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) 1-2, 10, 14, 22-23, 25, 28-29, 32, 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daugharthy (WO-2021/168326-A1) in view of Hirose (US-2016/0056577-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Daugharthy teaches an assembly comprising:
a stage body (stage) ([0124] see hinge catch 1907 on the stage, where this is seen in Figure 19);
a cam plate (cam plate 1908) disposed on the stage body (stage) ([0124], Figure 19 see that the component that has the hinge catch 1907 where on top of this is the cam plate 1908);
a sample positioning plate having a sample positioning surface configured to receive a sample device (sample device 1902) ([0124], Figures 18 and 19 where the area where the sample device 1902 is a sample positioning plate. In particular, in Figure 18 for the open hinged lid picture, there is a plate that will support the cassette (not just empty space) that is seen to be inserted in the next step),
a temperature control apparatus (temperature control system 1701) ([0121], Figure 17. See [0121] which describes the temperature control system can be located near or within a recess to provide direct thermal control of the recess or the sample device inserted into the recess through thermal conduction and/or convection. The area where the sample device 1902 is placed is a sample positioning plate);
a riser module (Z riser module) disposed within the stage body (stage), wherein the riser module (Z riser module) is coupled to the sample positioning plate and the stage body (stage) ([0124] see Z riser module pushes vertically against the bottom of the sample device and that the Z riser module does not touch any of the plastic components of the sample cassette of the sample device, Figure 19 where one skilled in the art would find it obvious that the Z riser module would be within the stage in order to push the sample device upwards. Additionally, in Figure 18 when the hinged lid is opened it can be seen that there is a plate for the cassette to be placed, it is understood that the springs would be on the opposite side of this plate);
a lid (lid 1912) configured to be coupled to the cam plate (1908), wherein the lid (1912) comprises an aperture (see Figure 19 in particular), wherein the lid (1908) has a coupled configuration and an uncoupled configuration such that (see Figure 18), when in the coupled configuration, a recess is formed by at least the lid (1912) and the sample positioning plate ([0121] see stage can comprise one or more recesses, [0124], Figure 19); and
one or more light sources (LEDs) disposed in the cam plate (1908), wherein the one or more light sources (LEDs) are configured to direct light within the recess ([0125] see the recess on the stage for holding the sample device can comprise edge lighting, where the edge lighting can be mounted in the hinge of the lid, further as seen in Figure 19 the lid 1912 is seen to be attached to the cam plate 1908, where one skilled in the art would find it obvious that both the lid and the cam plate would require a hinged component, and as such the LEDs placed in the hinge will be within the cam plate (hinge part on the cam plate)).
The limitations a sample positioning plate having a sample positioning surface “configured to receive a sample device”, a lid “configured to be coupled to the cam plate”, and wherein the one or more light sources are “configured to direct light within the recess” are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Daugharthy and the apparatus of Daugharthy is capable of receiving a sample device, coupling the lid to the cam plate, and directing light within the recess. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Daugharthy (see MPEP §2114).
Further, please note that the sample device has not been positively recited in the claim, and is therefore not a part of the claimed assembly. For convenience, the sample device of Daugharthy has been mapped in the claim, however please note that the sample device is not required.
Daugharthy does not teach wherein the sample positioning surface comprises a first raised portion, a second raised portion, and a third raised portion, wherein the second raised portion is disposed between the first raised portion and the third raised portion, wherein the first raised portion, the second raised portion, and the third raised portion are configured to contact the sample device.
In the same problem solving area of mounting modules, Hirose teaches mount portions (Hirose; [0245]).
Specifically, Hirose teaches where a bottom plate 510 includes two mount portions 512 and a support plate holding portion 514, where support plate holding portion 514 has pins 516 that correspond to positioning holes 215 of support plate 210 (Hirose; [0235], Figures 29-30). As seen in Figure 31, module M is disposed on the support plate 210 where transparent plate 8 of the module M is supported by the plate mount portions 512 (Hirose; [0240]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the area where the sample device is placed of Daugharthy such that it includes the mount portions and support plate as taught by Hirose because Hirose teaches that these components are effective for supporting a module (Hirose; [0235], [0240]).
Examiner further finds that the prior art included each element claimed (as set forth above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements within a single reference. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., adding the mount portions and support plate holding portion to the plate described above (sample positioning plate) seen in Figure 18), and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., supporting a cassette), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine the plate seen in Figure 18 (sample positioning plate) of reference Daugharthy with the mounting portions and support plate of reference Hirose, since the result would have been predictable.
Note the limitations wherein the first raised portion, the second raised portion, and the third raised portion are “configured to contact the sample device” and a temperature control apparatus “configured to heat the first raised portion, the second raised portion, and the third raised portion” are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Daugharthy and the apparatus of modified Daugharthy is capable of contacting the sample device, and the temperature control system of Daugharthy is capable of heating the first, second, and third raised portions. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Daugharthy (see MPEP §2114).
Please note that the area where the sample device 1902 is placed is a sample positioning plate which has been modified by Hirose to include the mount portions and support plate, and because the temperature control system may provide thermal control via conduction, the temperature control system will be coupled to the sample positioning plate and thus heat the mount portions and support plate.
Further, the sample device has not been positively recited and is thus not a part of the claimed assembly.
Regarding claim 2, modified Daugharthy teaches the assembly of claim 1. Hirose further teaches wherein the first raised portion, the second raised portion, and the third raised portion each comprises a seating surface that is substantially planar (Hirose; Figure 30 where the mount portions and support plate have planar surfaces).
Regarding claim 10, modified Daugharthy teaches the assembly of claim 1. Daugharthy further teaches further comprising a temperature control apparatus coupled to the sample positioning plate (please see claim 1 supra, and 112 section supra with regards to the temperature control apparatus of claim 10 being the same as the one described in claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Daugharthy teaches the assembly of claim 1. Daugharthy further teaches wherein the cam plate (1908) comprises a light source housing extending therefrom, wherein the one or more light sources (LEDs) are disposed within the light source housing, wherein the light source housing comprises an opening directed at the recess, and wherein the one or more light sources (LEDs) are configured to direct light towards the sample device (1902) (Daugharthy; [0125] see edge lighting can be mounted in the hinge of the lid, where as described above the cam plate will have a corresponding hinge component and thus the LEDs would be disposed in the cam plate, where the hinge is a light source housing that will need an opening for the light to be directed to the recess).
Please note that the sample device has not been positively recited, and is thus not a part of the claimed assembly.
Regarding claim 22, modified Daugharthy teaches the assembly of claim 1. Daugharthy further teaches wherein the recess is further formed by at least a portion of the cam plate (Daugharthy; see Figure 19).
Regarding claim 23, modified Daugharthy teaches the assembly of claim 1. Daugharthy further teaches further comprising a cam pusher (cam pusher 1909) operably coupled to a hinge, wherein the cam pusher (1909) is configured to translate when the hinge is actuated (Daugharthy; [0124] see hinged lid and that the hinge’s angle relative to the imaging plane decreases the cams begin to rotate, where the rotation is controlled by motion of cam pusher 1909, Figure 19).
The limitation “wherein the cam pusher is configured to translate when the hinge is actuated.” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Daugharthy and the cam pusher of Daugharthy is capable of translating when the hinge is actuated. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Daugharthy (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 25, modified Daugharthy teaches the assembly of claim 23. Daugharthy further teaches further comprising one or more cams (X and Y cams 1910 and 1911) rotatably coupled to the cam plate (1908), wherein the sample positioning plate defines a plane, wherein each cam (1910 and 1911) is operably coupled to the cam pusher (1909) and configured to rotate about an axis perpendicular to the plane (Daugharthy; [0124], Figure 19).
Regarding claim 28, modified Daugharthy teaches the assembly of claim 1. Daugharthy further teaches wherein the cam plate (1908) comprises one or more pins (X or Y pins 1906 1905) configured to restrict motion of the sample device (1902) in at least one of the x-direction and the y- direction (Daugharthy; [0124], Figure 19).
The limitation one or more pins “configured to restrict motion of the sample device in at least one of the x-direction and the y- direction.” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Daugharthy and the pins of Daugharthy is capable of restricting motion of the sample device in at least one of the x-direction and the y-direction. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Daugharthy (see MPEP §2114).
Further, please note that the sample device has not been positively recited, and is thus not a part of the claimed assembly.
Regarding claim 29, modified Daugharthy teaches the assembly of claim 1. Daugharthy further teaches wherein the lid (1912) comprises one or more pins (Z pins 1903 and 1904) configured to restrict motion of the sample device (1902) in a z-direction, wherein the z-direction is perpendicular to the sample positioning surface (Daugharthy; [0124], Figure 19).
The limitation comprises one or more pins “configured to restrict motion of the sample device in a z-direction” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Daugharthy and the pins of Daugharthy is capable of restricting motion of the sample device in a z-direction. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Daugharthy (see MPEP §2114).
Further, please note that the sample device has not been positively recited, and is thus not a part of the claimed assembly.
Regarding claim 32, modified Daugharthy teaches the assembly of claim 1. Hirose further teaches wherein the first raised portion, the second raised portion, and the third raised portion are complementary to apertures in the sample device (Hirose; Figure 30).
However, please note that the sample device has not been positively claimed and is thus not a part of the claimed assembly. Therefore, the limitations of claim 32 are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 43, modified Daugharthy teaches the assembly of claim 1.
The limitations of claim 43 are directed to the sample device, which has not been positively claimed as part of the assembly. Therefore, the limitations of claim 43 are considered to be met.
However, please note that Daugharthy teaches where a support 1304 (e.g., a glass slide) is placed between a top piece of a sample cassette 1302 and bottom piece 1305 (Daugharthy; [0103], Figure 13A). Further, [0121] of Daugharthy describes that the stage seen in Figure 17 holds the sample device, which can be the sample slide assembled into the sample cassette.
Regarding claim 44, modified Daugharthy teaches the assembly of claim 43.
The limitations of claim 44 are directed to the sample device, which has not been positively claimed as part of the assembly. Therefore, the limitations of claim 44 are considered to be met.
However, please see claim 43 supra which describes that the support can be a glass slide that is placed in the cassette.
Claim(s) 11, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daugharthy (WO-2021/168326-A1) and Hirose (US-2016/0056577-A1), and in further view of Richards (US-6296809-B1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Daugharthy teaches the assembly of claim 10. Daugharthy teaches that the stage comprises a temperature control system that is located near or within the recess to provide direct thermal control of the recess or sample device inserted into the recess (Daugharthy; [0121]). However, it is unclear where exactly the temperature control system is placed in the stage.
In the same problem solving area of thermal platforms for heating slides, Richards teaches where the thermal platform includes a heater/sensor unit (Richards; abstract, column 7 lines 19-22).
Specifically, Richards teaches where a heater/sensor unit 58 has a plate 60 with a skirt 62 (Richards; column 7 lines 24-25, 50-55). Further, a resistive heater 64 is placed on the bottom side of plate 60 (Richards; column 9 lines 4-5). As seen in Figure 9, the glass slide 37 rests against plate 60 (Richards; column 10 lines 21-22).
Daugharthy is silent with regards to specific location of the temperature control system, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional temperature control system locations. Richards provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to have heaters on the underside of a housing that supports a glass slide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the temperature control system on the underside of the Z riser module of Daugharthy because Richards teaches that this is an effective placement for heaters to affect a glass slide.
The temperature control system will therefore be between the sample positioning plate (area where sample device is placed, that has been modified by Hirose) and the bottom of the Z riser module.
Regarding claim 31, modified Daugharthy teaches the assembly of claim 1. While Daugharthy teaches that the stage comprises a temperature control system that is located near or within the recess to provide direct thermal control of the recess or sample device inserted into the recess, where the temperature controller may include a liquid cooling/circulating system to dissipate heat produced during temperature changes (Daugharthy; [0121], [0126]). The liquid cooling/circulating system is a fluidic circuit, however it is unclear where exactly the temperature control system is placed in the stage.
In the same problem solving area of thermal platforms for heating slides, Richards teaches where the thermal platform includes a heater/sensor unit (Richards; abstract, column 7 lines 19-22).
Specifically, Richards teaches where a heater/sensor unit 58 has a plate 60 with a skirt 62 (Richards; column 7 lines 24-25, 50-55). Further, a resistive heater 64 is placed on the bottom side of plate 60 (Richards; column 9 lines 4-5). As seen in Figure 9, the glass slide 37 rests against plate 60 (Richards; column 10 lines 21-22).
Daugharthy is silent with regards to specific location of the temperature control system, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional temperature control system locations. Richards provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to have heaters on the underside of a housing that supports a glass slide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the temperature control system on the underside of the Z riser module of Daugharthy because Richards teaches that this is an effective placement for heaters to affect a glass slide.
As the temperature control system will be on the underside of the Z riser module, and the temperature control system may include liquid cooling/circulating system, the Z riser module will comprise a fluidic circuit.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daugharthy (WO-2021/168326-A1) and Hirose (US-2016/0056577-A1), and in further view of Nomura (WO-2006/048926-A1). Please note that in the provided copy of Nomura there are two sets of paragraph numbers, where the bolded paragraph numbers will be used for mapping.
Regarding claim 40, modified Daugharthy teaches the assembly of claim 1. Modified Daugharthy does not teach further comprising at least one screw coupling the sample positioning plate to the riser module, wherein the at least one screw is configured to adjust a plane of the sample positioning plate.
In the same problem solving area of structures that hold a reaction substrate, Nomura teaches a slide stage that can be rotated to a desired planar angle (Nomura; [0012], [0114]).
Specifically, Nomura teaches a slide stage 341 that is made to be a shape that allows lower cassette 351 to be fitted and placed at different planar angles, where fixing screws 3414A-D are screwed into slots 3413A-D to fix the selected horizontal angle (Nomura; [0112], Figures 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the connection of the Z riser module of Daugharthy and the mount portions and support plate holding portion of Hirose such that they are connected to each other via screws, and that the Z riser module has slots as taught by Nomura because Nomura teaches that with this sort of configuration it allows for a desired horizontal angle to be obtained (Nomura; [0114]).
The limitation the at least one screw is “configured to adjust a plane of the sample positioning plate.” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Daugharthy and the apparatus of modified Daugharthy is capable of adjusting a plane of the sample positioning plate. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Daugharthy (see MPEP §2114).
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered. Due to amendments to the claims, incorporating the limitations of a temperature control apparatus into claim 1, the rejections in view of Daugharthy (WO-2021/168326-A1) and Hirose (US-2016/0056577-A1) under 35 USC 103 have been modified to address this amendment.
Applicant argues starting on page 7 that Hirose is directed to a socket, adaptor, and assembly jig for high-resolution imaging of tissue slices, where Hirose is completely silent on heating or temperature control of any kind, where it is argued that there is no process step in Hirose’s system that would require or benefit from conducting heat through the support plate holding portion 514 or its pins 516. Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to configure these structures to conduct heat because there is nothing in Hirose’s disclosure for such heat to accomplish, and further that the additional complexity and cost of providing a temperature control apparatus would disincentivize or teach away from an artisan of ordinary skill to seek to modify Hirose’s device to include providing heat to 514 and 516.
This is not persuasive because it is respectfully noted that in the current rejection, it is not adding a temperature control apparatus to the apparatus of Hirose. Rather, the mechanism seen in Figure 19 of Daugharthy is being modified such that the area where the sample device is placed be modified to include the mount portions and support plate of Hirose, please see page 7 of this office action. The mechanism of Daugharthy discloses a temperature control system 1701 that provides direct thermal control of the recess or sample device inserted into the recess.
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 SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights