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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings with 8 Sheets of Figs. 1-6D received on 7/17/2023 are acknowledged and accepted.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Abstract recites “The invention relates to a tilting device” in line 1. This is incorrect language. It is suggested to be replaced with –A tilting device--
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).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-15, objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-6,8-9 recite “Tilting device” in line 1. There is sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is suggested to be replaced with –The tilting device-.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6 and hence inherits its deficiencies.
Claims 9,14, are dependent on claim 8 and hence inherit its deficiencies.
Claims 10,13,14,15 recite “a tilting device” in line 1. There is sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is suggested to be replaced with –the tilting device-.
Claims 11,12, are dependent on claim 10 and hence inherit its deficiencies.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4,5,7,9 -15, as best understood, 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.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). From the specification, it appears that the tilt angle can be in a range of 0-20 degrees. For the purpose of examination, the range 0-20 degrees is interpreted to be the range.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). From the specification, it appears that an eyepiece of the microscope is included. For the purpose of examination, the eyepiece is taken to be present.
Claims 11,12, are dependent on claim 10 and hence inherit its deficiencies.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). From the specification, it appears that a flow is produced the transport of said fluid is included. For the purpose of examination, the transport of said fluid is taken to be present.
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 13 and hence inherits its deficiencies.
Claims 4,7,9, recite “said tilting mechanism”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether tilting mechanism is the same as the tilting device or whether it is different. From the specification, it appears that the tilting mechanism is the same as the tilting device.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). From the specification, it appears that a flow is produced the transport of said fluid is included. For the purpose of examination, the transport of said fluid is taken to be present.
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) 1-4,8-11,15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al (US 2015/0264270 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe teaches (fig 1-7) a tilting device (tilt mechanism 130, para 36) for microscopy (microscope system, para 34), comprising:
a sample carrier mount (stage 100, para 36), and
an optical component (objective lens of imaging unit 110, para 47) with an optical axis (OA) (optical axis L1, para 66),
where said optical axis (OA) is aligned with respect to a base side (base 11, para 45) of said sample carrier mount (stage 100, para 36) (as in fig 3),
where said sample carrier mount and said optical component are mounted to be tiltable (“a tilt mechanism 130 which tilts a focal plane P_FC of the imaging unit 110 with respect to a moving direction the stage 100, a tilt angle setting unit 140 which sets the tilt angle of the focal plane P_FC with respect to the moving direction of the stage 100 to the tilt mechanism 130”, para 36, fig 3, “the observation optical system 112 and the transmitted-light illumination optical system 15 may be arranged in a manner to align the optical axis L1 with the vertical direction and the stage 100 may be tilted with respect to the horizontal direction.”, para 66, fig 7), and
where the alignment of said optical axis (OA) (optical axis L1, para 66) with respect to said base side (base 11, para 45) of said sample carrier mount (stage 100, para 36) is maintained when said sample carrier mount (stage 100, para 36) and said optical component (objective lens of imaging unit 110, para 47) are tilted (“the observation optical system 112 and the transmitted-light illumination optical system 15 may be arranged in a manner to align the optical axis L1 with the vertical direction and the stage 100 may be tilted with respect to the horizontal direction”, para 66, as in fig 3, 7).
Regarding Claim 2, Watanabe teaches the tilting device according to claim 1,
where said optical component (objective lens of imaging unit 110, para 47) is an objective and/or a mirror.
Regarding Claim 3, Watanabe teaches the tilting device according to claim 1,
where said sample carrier mount (stage 100, para 36) and said optical component (objective lens of imaging unit 110, para 47) are each connected to a joint (imaging unit 110 tilts around the joint where strut 13, para 45 meets the imaging unit and stage 100 tilts around the stage mount 12, page 45, which is considered a joint) and are mounted to be tiltable about said respective joint (as in figs 3 and 7).
Regarding Claim 4, Watanabe teaches the tilting device according to claim 1,
where said tilting mechanism (tilt mechanism 130, para 36) is configured such that said sample carrier mount (stage 100, para 36) and said optical component (objective lens of imaging unit 110, para 47) are tilted about a tilt axis (“the imaging surface 111a of the imager 111 is tilted by an angle Ɵ with respect to a plane perpendicular to the optical axis L1 around a Y axis as a rotary axis.”, para 70) which is aligned to be perpendicular to said optical axis (OA) (optical axis L1, para 66).
Regarding Claim 8, Watanabe teaches the Tilting device according to claim 1,
furthermore comprising an inclination unit (tilt angle setting unit 140, para 40) with a motor (tilting is accomplished with a drive or motor and is implicit in the tilt mechanism), where said motor (is connected to said optical component (objective lens of imaging unit 110, para 47) and/or to said sample carrier mount (stage 100, para 36), and
where said motor is configured such that it tilts said sample carrier mount (stage 100, para 36) and said optical component (objective lens of imaging unit 110, para 47) (“a tilt mechanism 130 which tilts a focal plane P_FC of the imaging unit 110 with respect to a moving direction the stage 100, a tilt angle setting unit 140 which sets the tilt angle of the focal plane P_FC with respect to the moving direction of the stage 100 to the tilt mechanism 130”, para 36, fig 3, “the observation optical system 112 and the transmitted-light illumination optical system 15 may be arranged in a manner to align the optical axis L1 with the vertical direction and the stage 100 may be tilted with respect to the horizontal direction.”, para 66, fig 7).
Regarding Claim 9, Watanabe teaches the Tilting device according to claim 8, furthermore comprising:
an inclination sensor (tilt angle setting unit 140, para 40) and a control unit (control device 20 with control unit 23), where said inclination sensor is configured such that it can detect and output a value of a tilt angle (tilt angle Ɵ, para 40) of said tilting mechanism (tilt mechanism 130, para 36), and
where said control unit (control device 20 with control unit 23) is configured to receive the value output by said inclination sensor (tilt angle setting unit 140, para 40) and, based on the value received and a predetermined target value, to transmit a control signal to said inclination unit (tilt angle setting unit 140, para 40) so that said inclination unit adjusts the tilt angle of said tilting mechanism to said predetermined target value (“The tilt angle setting unit 140 calculates the tilt angle Ɵ of the focal plane P_FC and sets the tilt angle Ɵ to the tilt mechanism 130”, “The tilt angle setting unit 140 calculates the tilt angle .theta. of the imaging unit 110 on the basis of the acquired observation magnification and the acquired size of the effective area”, para 40).
Regarding Claim 10, Watanabe teaches a microscope (microscope, para 3) comprising, the tilting device according to claim 1,
a stand (microscope stand or strut 13 set on base 11, para 44), a projection system (observational optical system 112, para 37) with a projection lens (one of the lenses in 112) and an eyepiece (eyepiece of the microscope in Watanabe).
Regarding Claim 11, Watanabe-Newman teaches the microscope according to claim 10, where said projection system furthermore comprises:
one or more mirrors, where said mirrors are mechanically coupled or controllable electronically individually, and/or an imaging component (lens in 112 closer to imager 111).
Regarding Claim 15, Watanabe teaches the use of a tilting device for microscopy (microscope, para 3) according to claim 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5-7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (US 2015/0264270 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Watanabe teaches the tilting device according to claim 1,
where said sample carrier mount (stage 100, para 36) and said optical component (objective lens of imaging unit 110, para 47) can be tilted by a tilt angle (tilt angle Ɵ, para 40) less than 30 degrees., with respect to a horizontal position of said sample carrier mount (stage 100, para 36).
However, Watanabe does not teach
tilt angle between 0 degrees and 1 degree, in particular between 0 degrees and 20 degrees.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of tilt angles, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at page 23 does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 0 to less than 30 degrees. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Watanabe to have the claimed range of tilt angles for the purposes of a wider range of tilting angles for fluid transfer.
Regarding Claim 6, Watanabe teaches the tilting device according to claim 1.
However, embodiment of fig 1-7 Watanabe
furthermore comprising a motion device, where said motion unit is configured such that it can move said optical component in a plane parallel to said base side of said sample carrier mount, or where said motion unit is configured such that it can move said optical component perpendicular to said base side of said sample carrier mount , or parallel to said optical axis (OA), respectively.
Embodiment of fig 9 of Watanabe teaches
furthermore comprising a motion device,
where said motion device (device which generates relative movement as in para 106) is configured such that it can move said optical component (objective lens of imaging unit 110, para 47) in a plane parallel to said base side of said sample carrier mount (stage 100, para 36) (“imaging is performed a plurality of times while moving the stage 100 relative to the imaging unit 110”, para 105, “the relative movement may be achieved by fixing the sample SP and moving the imaging unit 110”, para 106))
where said motion device is configured such that it can move said optical component perpendicular to said base side of said sample carrier mount, or parallel to said optical axis (OA), respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of embodiment of fig 1-7 of Watanabe to include the motion device of embodiment of fig 9 of Watanabe for the purpose of image acquirement at high speed and accuracy (para 105).
Regarding Claim 7, Watanabe teaches the Tilting mechanism according to claim 6.
However, embodiment of fig 1-7 Watanabe
where said motion unit is configured such that it can move said sample carrier mount in a plane perpendicular to said optical axis (OA) of said optical component, or where said motion device is configured such that it can move said sample carrier mount parallel to said optical axis (OA).
Embodiment of fig 9 of Watanabe teaches
where said motion unit (device which generates relative movement as in para 106) is configured such that it can move said sample carrier mount (stage 100, para 36) in a plane perpendicular to said optical axis (OA) of said optical component (“imaging is performed a plurality of times while moving the stage 100 relative to the imaging unit 110”, para 105), or where said motion device is configured such that it can move said sample carrier mount parallel to said optical axis (OA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of embodiment of fig 1-7 of Watanabe to include the motion device of embodiment of fig 9 of Watanabe for the purpose of image acquirement at high speed and accuracy (para 105).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (US 2015/0264270 A1) in view of Yonezawa et al (US 6,339,507).
Regarding Claim 12, Watanabe teaches the microscope (microscope, para 3) according to claim 10,
However, Watanabe does not teach
where said projection lens is mounted to be movable along its optical axis, and/or where a focal length of said projection lens is variable, and where a motion of said projection lens along its optical axis and/or said focal length can be controlled individually.
Yonezawa teaches (fig 1A, B)
where said projection lens is mounted to be movable along its optical axis, and/or where a focal length of said projection lens is variable, and where a motion of said projection lens along its optical axis and/or said focal length can be controlled individually.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Watanabe to include the projection system of Yonezawa for the purpose of utilizing common imaging elements in microscopes to adjust the beam shape and path (para 90).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (US 2015/0264270 A1) in view of Shuler et al (US 2020/0070165 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Watanabe teaches a method for microscopy comprising: providing a tilting device for microscopy according to claim 1:
mounting a sample carrier (sample SP in sample carrier, para 35) in said sample carrier mount (stage 100, para 36);
However, Watanabe does not teach
tilting said sample carrier mount, where said sample carrier comprises a first reservoir, a second reservoir, and a channel, where said first reservoir is connected to said second reservoir by way of said channel,
where a fluid is transported from said first reservoir into said second reservoir by tilting said sample carrier mount, where a flow is produced in particular by the transport of said fluid, and where cells (ZS) are cultured under this flow.
Shuler teaches (fig 1A-1C)
mounting a sample carrier (sample slides, para 75) in said sample carrier mount
tilting said sample carrier mount (tilted rocking platform, para 77), where said sample carrier comprises a first reservoir (first reservoir 14, para 38), a second reservoir (second reservoir 16, para 38), and a channel (channel layer 18, para 40), where said first reservoir (first reservoir 14, para 38) is connected to said second reservoir (second reservoir 16, para 38) by way of said channel (channel layer 18, para 40) (“channel layer 18 is coupled directly to reservoir base 12”, para 41),
where a fluid is transported (“the first and second flows of fluid provide a continuous flow of fluid across channel network 32(1) when device 10 is moving between the forward tilted and reverse tilted positions”, para 44) from said first reservoir (first reservoir 14, para 38) into said second reservoir (second reservoir 16, para 38) by tilting said sample carrier mount, where a flow is produced in particular by the transport of said fluid, and where cells (ZS) are cultured under this flow (“The unidirectional flow of device 10 can be used to deliver fluid to catalyst 40 located in one or more of plurality of channels 34(1)-34(n) of channel network 32(1). In one embodiment, catalyst 40 comprises a cell culture”, para 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Watanabe to include the tilting of sample carrier mount and fluid transfer between two reservoirs of Shuler for the purpose of utilizing an effective self-contained and cost-effective method of cell culture (para 5).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (US 2015/0264270 A1) in view of McFarland et al (US 2022/0325240 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Watanabe teaches the method according to where a tilting device according to claim 8 is provided.
However, Watanabe does not teach
where said sample carrier furthermore comprises a fluid sensor, where said fluid sensor detects and outputs a value of one or more of a fluid level, a flow rate, or a flow direction within said sample carrier mounted in said sample carrier mount, and
where said control unit receives the value that is output by said fluid sensor and, based on the value received, transmits a control signal to said inclination unit, so that said inclination device adjusts the tilt angle of said tilting device so that one or more of the fluid level, the flow rate, or the flow direction within said sample carrier are adjusted to a predefined target value.
McFarland teaches (fig 1A-1C, 251)
where said sample carrier furthermore comprises a fluid sensor (fluid level sensor, para 274, fluid flow sensor 3332), where said fluid sensor (fluid level sensor, para 274, fluid flow sensor 3332) detects and outputs a value of one or more of a fluid level, a flow rate, or a flow direction within said sample carrier mounted in said sample carrier mount (bioreactor 3399, para 277) (“a fluid flow sensor 3332 can determine a flow rate of the fluid as the fluid leaves the bioreactor 3399”, para 277), and
where said control unit (“system controller 3364”, para 277) receives the value that is output by said fluid sensor (“the flow rate of the fluid information can be received by the system controller 3364 from the fluid flow sensor 3320”, para 277) and, based on the value received, transmits a control signal to said inclination unit (tilting device 190, para 522), so that said inclination device adjusts the tilt angle of said tilting device (tilting module 166, para 522) so that one or more of the fluid level, the flow rate, or the flow direction within said sample carrier (bioreactor 3399, para 277) are adjusted to a predefined target value (“the tilting module 166 can control the tilting rate and timing to optimize transfer of micro-objects to the one or more sequestration pens via gravitational forces”, para 522) (“bioreactor 3399 can comprise sensors capable of directly interrogating fluid within a compartment of a bioreactor. FIG. 251 illustrates an additional and/or alternate system and method of interrogating fluid of bioreactor 3399. In various embodiments, one or more valves 3320, 3326, 3328 can be actuated to direct an aliquot of fluid from the bioreactor 3399 to one or more sensors 3338, 3340”, para 394).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Watanabe to include the fluid sensor of McFarland for the purpose of utilizing a method for performing cellular therapeutics (para 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kalkbrenner et al (US 2022/0043244 A1) teaches (fig 1-4C) a microscopic device with a tilting device of sample carrier mount.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 4/29/2026
Prosecution Insights