DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/15/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and, with respect to the amendment to claim 8, are persuasive because the prior art of record does not teach the newly recited limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huang (CN 201568542 U).
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 § 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.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai (US 20030047689 A1) in view of Huang (CN 201568542 U), and Nakayama, et. al. (US 20170004952 A1), hereinafter Nakayama.
Regarding claim 8, Kasai teaches a system for precisely controlling a specimen, the system comprising:
a holder configured to insert the specimen into an electronic microscope (holder H, Fig. 1, [0027]-[0028], [0039]); and
a goniometer stage configured to precisely control a motion of the specimen (goniometer stage Gs including the components surrounding the holder used in conjunction to control motion of the specimen, including cylindrical bearing member 17, cylindrical support member 18, hollow rotating member 22, spherical body portion 23, cylindrical portion 24, outer cylinder 25, X-position adjusting device Dx, Y-position adjusting device Dy, Z-position adjusting device Dz, device Dt, see Figs. 1 and 2),
wherein the holder includes:
a handle part (grip H2, [0039], Fig. 7C);
a specimen mounting part configured to fix the specimen (specimen holding portion H3, [0039], Figs. 1 and 7C);
a coupling part connecting the handle part and the specimen mounting part (holder pipe H1, [0039], Fig. 7C); and
a guide pin configured to couple the holder to an interior of the goniometer stage (pin H6 couples holder H to 24 and 26, [0039], Figs. 6 and 7A-C).
Kasai does not explicitly teach wherein the guide pin includes: a support part; and a frictional column having a height and coupled to the support part, wherein the support part includes: a lower support member including a screw structure on an outer surface thereof to be coupled to the holder; and an upper support member on the lower support member, wherein the frictional column surrounds an outer surface of the upper support member along at least the height of the frictional column.
Huang teaches wherein the guide pin (rolling guide pin with sheath 44 are together interpreted as the guide pin, [0009]-[0011], [0018], Figs. 3-5) includes:
a support part (43 rolling guide pin, [0009]-[0011], [0028], Figs. 3-5); and
a frictional column having a height and coupled to the support part (sheath 44 has a height between elements 40 and 47 as seen in Fig. 4, and reduces friction, [0028], Figs. 3-5),
wherein the support part includes:
a lower support member to be coupled to the holder (lower, thinner part of rolling guide pin 43 that is inserted into 40 is coupled to fixing shaft 40, as seen in Figs. 3-5); and
an upper support member on the lower support member (upper, wider part of rolling guide pin 43 that is not embedded in fixing shaft 40 and extends between elements 40 and 47 in sheath 44, as seen in Figs. 3-5), wherein the frictional column surrounds an outer surface of the upper support member along at least the height of the frictional column (sheath 44 surrounds upper part of 43 along its full height between element 40 and 47, Figs. 3-5).
Huang modifies Kasai by suggesting that the guide pin is comprised of an upper and lower support member, the lower support member coupling the guide pin to the holder, and a frictional column surrounding an outer surface of the upper support member along the height of the frictional column.
Since Huang is directed to a guide pin and aims to solve the same problem as the claimed invention, that of reducing friction between the guide pin and holder as the guide pin moves through a slot, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Huang because the structure of the guide pin of Huang, which includes a sheath on the external side, provides reduced friction force between the moving components, prolonging the service life of the product (Huang, Abstract, [0011], [0028]).
Nakayama teaches a lower support member includes a screw structure on an outer surface thereof to be coupled to the holder (male screw structure 14 on an outer surface couples to sample holder 1, [0037]).
Nakayama modifies Kasai by suggesting the lower support member of the guide pin of Kasai includes a screw structure that allows for coupling to the sample holder. The screw structure of Nakayama provides the mechanism by which the guide pin of Kasai can be coupled to the holder of Kasai, since Kasai does not teach the mechanism or structure by which the guide pin is attached to the holder.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nakayama because a screw structure allows for attachment/detachment to a holder (Nakayama, [0037]).
Regarding claim 9, Kasai teaches wherein the goniometer stage includes a 3-axis driving motor configured to move the holder in a first direction in which the coupling part extends, a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (Dx, Dy, and Dz, including motors 32, 41, 46, [0044]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Kasai teaches wherein the goniometer stage further includes a first rotation driving motor configured to rotate the holder about an axis that extends in the first direction (Device Dt for adjustment of the rotational position about X-axis, [0041]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 11, Kasai teaches wherein the goniometer stage includes a gonio pipe configured to fix the holder (inner cylinder 26, Fig. 6, Figs. 7B-C, [0036], [0039]), wherein the gonio pipe provides: an interior space extending in a first direction in which the coupling part extends (holder through-hole 26a, [0036], Fig. 2, Fig. 7); and a slit extending in the first direction through which the interior space is exposed (pin guide hole 26c, [0036], Fig. 7), and wherein a length of the slit in the first direction is smaller than a length of the gonio pipe in the first direction (Fig. 7B), and one end of the slit is at one end of the gonio pipe (end on left side of Fig. 7B).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai (US 20030047689 A1), Huang (CN 201568542 U), and Nakayama (US 20170004952 A1) in view of Thomas (US 20210048081 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination does not teach wherein a perimeter of the upper support member includes one of a triangular shape, a rectangular shape, and a pentagonal shape, and wherein a perimeter of the frictional column includes one of a pentagonal shape, a hexagonal shape, and an octagonal shape.
Thomas teaches wherein a perimeter of the upper support member includes one of a triangular shape, a rectangular shape, and a pentagonal shape (Figs. 3, 4, and 7 show the perimeter of the inner part of the interpreted upper support member (upper protruding part of 106) including a triangular shape (see the triangular points making up the star shape)), and wherein a perimeter of the frictional column includes one of a pentagonal shape, a hexagonal shape, and an octagonal shape (perimeter of 104 is shown in Figs. 3-5 as having an octagonal shape, [0061]-[0062]).
Thomas modifies the combination by suggesting the shapes of the perimeters of the upper support member and the perimeter of the frictional column.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Thomas because the configuration of the guide pin allows for mounting/coupling of the guide pin to a carrier (Thomas, [0001]). Additionally, the shape of the perimeter is a change in shape that is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. teaches “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).” Absent demonstration of the criticality of the particular shape, the prior art renders obvious the claim. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. for more information.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai (US 20030047689 A1), Huang (CN 201568542 U), and Nakayama (US 20170004952 A1), in view of Miyazaki (US 20150170873 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination does not teach wherein the specimen mounting part includes: a mounting body; a fastening screw; a fixing plate configured to fix the specimen and having a hollow central area such that the specimen is precisely observed; and a fixing pin configured to press opposite ends of the fixing plate when one side thereof is connected to the fastening screw to fasten the fastening screw.
Miyazaki teaches wherein the specimen mounting part (specimen holder tip part, [0062], [0082]) includes: a mounting body (specimen setting seat 62, [0109], Fig. 7); a fastening screw (fixing means 57, [0109], Fig. 7); a fixing plate configured to fix the specimen and having a hollow central area such that the specimen is precisely observed (central part of specimen holding means 60 with circular cutout area, [0109], see annotated version of Fig. 7 below); and a fixing pin configured to press opposite ends of the fixing plate when one side thereof is connected to the fastening screw to fasten the fastening screw (outer edges of specimen holding means 60, [0109], see annotated version of Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure
Miyazaki modifies the combination by suggesting the specimen mounting part includes a mounting body, fastening screw, fixing plate, and fixing pin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Miyazaki because the configuration allows for a specimen to be fixed to the holder for observation in a way that is simple, smooth, and efficient, and avoids the need for re-positioning, (Miyazaki, [0114], [0118]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai (US 20030047689 A1), Huang (CN 201568542 U) and Nakayama (US 20170004952 A1), in view of Protolabs (Protolabs. Fillets vs. Chamfers: How to Handle Edges and Corners in CNC Machining Design. May 16, 2022. www.Protlabs.com/rescources/blog/fillets-and-chamfers.)
Regarding claim 12, Kasai teaches a corner of an insertion part at the one end of the slit and the one end of the gonio pipe (corner of 26c on left end of 26 in Fig. 7B). The combination does not teach that this corner includes a filleted structure.
Protolabs teaches a filleted structure (fillet, see first paragraph of “What is a Fillet?”).
Protolabs modifies the combination by suggesting that the corner of the insertion part of Kasai includes a filleted structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Protolabs because fillets helpto reduce stress and distribute it over a larger surface, improving load-bearing capacity and helping to prevent rapid deformation of a stressed part, (see first paragraph of “What is a Fillet?”.). This solves the same problem that the instant application is trying to solve by utilizing a filleted or chamfered edge, as seen in [0030]. Consequently, the claimed invention is obvious because it is shown by Protolabs that filleted edges are known to reduce residual stress.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai (US 20030047689 A1), Huang (CN 201568542 U), Nakayama (US 20170004952 A1), and Protolabs (Protolabs. Fillets vs. Chamfers: How to Handle Edges and Corners in CNC Machining Design. May 16, 2022. www. Protlabs.com/rescources/blog/fillets-and-chamfers.), in view of Morito, et. al. (US 20160064473 A1), hereinafter Morito.
Regarding claim 13, Although Protolabs suggest the filleted structure (see 103 rejection of claim 12 above), the combination does not explicitly teach wherein a radius of curvature of the filleted structure of the corner of the insertion part is 3 mm or more.
It would be obvious, in view of Morito, to achieve a radius of curvature of the filleted structure of the corner of the insertion part of 3 mm or more because Morito teaches that the stress is inversely proportional to the radius of curvature of the filleted (round-chamfered) structure (Morito, [0054]). Consequently, the claimed invention is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art could achieve the claimed range through routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art would seek to reduce stress on the corner, as dong so prevents degradation, and therefore experiment with the radius of curvature, as suggested by Morito, to achieve an optimal level of stress while maintaining the integrity of the structure, ultimately leading to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 II, which teaches “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai (US 20030047689 A1), Huang (CN 201568542 U) and Nakayama (US 20170004952 A1), in view of Katsushi (JP 2021039099 A).
Regarding claim 14, Kasai does not explicitly teach wherein a hardness of the gonio pipe is higher than a hardness of the frictional column.
Katsushi teaches a gonio pipe made of metal (Katsushi teaches a gonio pipe (second holder 12) is preferably metal, [0035]).
Huang teaches a guide pin with a non-metal frictional column (sheath) for sliding through a sleeve, such that the sheath of the guide pin has a hardness lower than the metal sleeve (Abstract, [0006], [009]-[0011], [0028]).
Katsushi and Huang modify Kasai to suggest that a hardness of the gonio pipe is higher than a hardness of the frictional column.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Katsushi because metal is the preferable material for the second holder because of its high specific gravity and high processing accuracy (Katsushi, [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Huang because the relative hardnesses provide reduced friction force between the moving components, prolonging the service life of the product (Huang, Abstract, [0011], [0028]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai (US 20030047689 A1), Huang (CN 201568542 U) and Nakayama (US 20170004952 A1), and Katsushi (JP 2021039099 A), in view of Zhang, et. al. (CN 208749646 U), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 16, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the frictional column includes one of polyester ether ketone (PEEK), polyamide (PA), and duraflon.
Zhang teaches wherein the frictional column includes one of polyester ether ketone (PEEK), polyamide (PA), and duraflon ([0014]).
Zhang modifies the combination by suggesting that the frictional column of the guide pin includes PEEK.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang because PEEK has a low coefficient of friction with metal, which can reduce the wear of the guide pin (Zhang, [0014]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai (US 20030047689 A1), Huang (CN 201568542 U), Nakayama (US 20170004952 A1), Katsushi (JP 2021039099 A), in view of El Baggari, et. al. (US 20250191876 A1), hereinafter El Baggari.
Regarding claim 15, Although Katsushi teaches a metal gonio pipe, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the gonio pipe includes copper.
El Baggari teaches wherein the gonio pipe includes copper ([0181]).
El Baggari modifies the combination by suggesting that the gonio pipe includes copper.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of El Baggari because copper is thermally conductive and can be used to keep the sample and holder cool ([180]-[0181]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Milas, et. al. (US 20120293791 A1), hereinafter Milas
Regarding claim 8, Milas teaches a system for precisely controlling a specimen (intended use), the system comprising: a holder configured to insert the specimen into an electronic microscope (sample holder 10 in use with TEM 100, Fig. 1, [0042], [0011]); and a goniometer stage configured to precisely control a motion of the specimen (goniometer stage 109, [0044], Fig. 1), wherein the holder includes: a handle part (shoulder portion 38 of sample holder body 14, [0051], Fig. 2); a specimen mounting part configured to fix the specimen (sample support member 16, [0046], Fig. 2); a coupling part connecting the handle part and the specimen mounting part (probe portion 37 of sample holder body 14, [0051], Fig. 2); and a guide pin configured to couple the holder to an interior of the goniometer stage (alignment tab 40, [0053], Fig. 2),
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 LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights