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 of group I, claims 1-22 in the reply filed on 13 February 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 23-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 13 February 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As to claim 3: The claim recites in part “The method of claim 1 and 2” and therefore is improper under 608.01(n) because a claim may only refer to a previous claim in the alternative only. Because the claim recites claim 1 and (emphasis added) 2, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained and therefore is not treated further on the merits at this time.
As to claim 4: The claim suffers from a similar issue as claim 3 but is not repeated herein for brevity.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 15-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segale et al. US Pat 9,404,737 B2 (hereafter Segale), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 29 February 2024, in view of Li et al. US PG-PUB 2012/0230666 A1 (hereafter Li).
As to claim 1: Segale discloses a method for controlling stage motion for an apparatus for imaging (see figs. 1 and 2 as well as details in col. 7, lines 66-67 and col. 8, lines 1-21) having at least one mechanical resonance with frequency f Hz and time period 1/f seconds (the imaging system 10 and imaging subsystem 100 are mechanical components as depicted in figs. 1 and 2 and therefore necessarily have a mechanical resonance with a definite frequency and period), comprising:
moving a component of the apparatus using motion commands (see col. 8, lines 13-21 regarding motion controlled by controller 117, especially regarding sample holder 118 and sample 120), wherein the component comprises a stage (118; see col. 8, lines 9-11) configured to hold an object to be imaged within a flow cell (14; see fig. 1 and details in col. 8, lines 9-11), and wherein the motion commands are derived from an even plurality of acceleration intervals (see col. 8, lines 12-16 regarding the scanning patterns disclosed), each acceleration interval having a starting time, an amplitude profile, and a time duration (each of the acceleration intervals necessarily has a definite starting time, profile, and duration according to the scanning pattern followed and disclosed in col. 8, lines 12-16), wherein the amplitude profile indicates an amplitude of the respective acceleration interval over at least a portion of the time duration (the amplitude profile of each acceleration interval is implicitly disclosed because one may draw a graph, plot a table, or otherwise show the data of acceleration over time of the sample being moved and any of these would constitute an amplitude profile by virtue of indicating the magnitude of the acceleration over time).
Segale does not explicitly teach:
wherein, among the even plurality of acceleration intervals, for each first acceleration interval, there is a second acceleration interval with a starting time approximately 1/(2f) seconds after the starting time of the first acceleration interval.
However, Li teaches:
wherein, among an even plurality of acceleration intervals, for each first acceleration interval, there is a second acceleration interval with a starting time approximately 1/(2f) seconds after the starting time of the first acceleration interval (see ¶ 55 and 57 regarding the wait time utilized to cancel vibrations).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Segale’s method such that, among the even plurality of acceleration intervals, for each first acceleration interval, there is a second acceleration interval with a starting time approximately 1/(2f) seconds after the starting time of the first acceleration interval, because such an acceleration produces the useful and predictable result of damping vibrations due to mechanical motion, such as suggested in ¶ 57 of Li and thus can ultimately allow for increased speed of the motion of the device subject to vibration by canceling out the unwanted vibrations, such as further suggested in Li ¶ 60. Accordingly, Segale’s method would benefit from such a modification by allowing Segale’s imaging subsystem 100 to move the sample holder 118 at a higher velocity without resulting in an increase of unwanted vibration which could affect the imaging results of Segale’s method and system.
As to claim 2: Segale as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the first acceleration interval excites a first vibration, and the second acceleration interval excites a second vibration, and the second vibration is approximately 180 degrees out of phase with the first vibration (see fig. 4 of Li as well details in ¶ 44 and 45).
As to claim 5: Segale as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: moving the component (118 of Segale) comprises motion within an x-y plane (see Segale col. 8, lines 16-21); and wherein the mechanical resonance affects structures governing focus settings for an imaging system positioned to view the object to be imaged (see fig. 2 of Segale and details in col. 8, lines 22-49; because the mechanical structures of the x-y stage and z focus settings are connected to one another through the imaging subsystem 100, a mechanical resonance therein affects structures connected thereto).
As to claim 6: Segale as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 5, wherein: stage motion occurs within the x-y plane (see Segale col. 8, lines 16-21), and the structures governing focus settings control the focus of an objective lens aligned along a z-axis orthogonal to the x-y plane (see Segale col. 8, lines 22-49 regarding focus lens 122).
As to claim 7: Segale as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 5, additionally comprising: measuring indicators (Segale 108; see col. 8, lines 38-41) for mechanical motion of the structures governing focus settings while the component is moving (see Segale col. 8, lines 38-60); and determining the amplitude profiles and time durations of at least some of the acceleration intervals based at least in part on the measured indicators (see Segale col. 8, lines 38-60; the measured acceleration intervals result in amplitude profiles and time durations such as depicted in Li figs. 4 and 5).
As to claim 9: Segale as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the indicators (Segale 108; see col. 8, lines 38-41) are used to determine the mechanical resonance frequency f in Hertz (see Li ¶ 60; the highest amplitude that is mitigated is considered to be the mechanical resonance of the vibration to be damped and has a definite frequency f in Hertz as depicted in Hertz).
As to claim 10: Segale as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 7, wherein: the indicators (Segale 108; see col. 8, lines 38-41) are used to determine a decay of vibration at the mechanical resonance frequency f Hz (see Li ¶ 60), and the determined decay of vibration is used to set one or more amplitude profiles for at least some of the accelerations intervals (see Li fig. 4 and details in ¶ 45 and 55).
As to claim 15: Segale as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the time duration for at least one acceleration interval is less than or equal to one half of the time period 1/f seconds (see Li ¶ 43).
As to claim 16: Segale as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: a portion of the amplitude profile for each acceleration interval has a constant acceleration value (see Li figs. 4 and 5; the acceleration intervals have constant values at least during inflection points of the displacement versus time curves).
As to claim 17: Segale as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: at least some of the acceleration intervals correspond to negative acceleration of the component (see figs. 4 and 5 of Li regarding the changing direction which can correspond to negative acceleration values of the component resulting in said motion).
As to claim 21: Segale as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of acceleration intervals comprises a first and a second acceleration interval (see Li figs. 4 and 5), each with a time duration of less than 1/(2f) seconds (see Li ¶ 56), and separated by a time interval with no acceleration (see Li ¶ 55 regarding the wait time), and wherein the amplitude of the second acceleration interval is smaller than the amplitude of the first acceleration interval (see Li figs. 4 and 5 and details in ¶ 45).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segale et al. US Pat 9,404,737 B2 (hereafter Segale), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 29 February 2024, in view of Li et al. US PG-PUB 2012/0230666 A1 (hereafter Li) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Shu et al. US PG-PUB 2015/0269081 A1 (hereafter Shu).
As to claim 8: Segale as modified by Li teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 7, including indicators (Segale 108; see col. 8, lines 38-41), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the indicators comprise servo control signals.
However, Shu teaches that measuring indicators of mechanical motion may comprise servo control signals (see ¶ 31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Segale’s method such that the indicators comprise servo control signals because such signals may be utilized to determine whether excessive vibration of a mechanical component is present which could adversely affect operation of the mechanical component, such as suggested in ¶ 31 of Shu. Accordingly, Segale’s method could be benefit from the useful and predictable result of mitigating vibrations as well as sensing when the vibration control is not needed which provides both the benefit of preventing less desirable functionality due to vibrations and lower operating efficiency due to unnecessary vibration prevention when excessive vibration is not detected, such as also suggested in ¶ 31 of Shu.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segale et al. US Pat 9,404,737 B2 (hereafter Segale), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 29 February 2024, in view of Li et al. US PG-PUB 2012/0230666 A1 (hereafter Li) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hombo et al. US PG-PUB 2016/0146719 A1 (hereafter Hombo).
As to claim 11: Segale as modified by Li teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 7, including 1 a component (118 of Segale) and wherein the mechanical resonance affects structures governing focus settings for an imaging system positioned to the view the object to be imaged (see Segale col. 8, lines 38-49), but does not explicitly teach:
moving the component comprises motion within a z-plane.
However, Hombo teaches moving a component that comprises motion within a z-plane (see ¶ 61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Segale’s method such that moving the component comprises motion within a z-plane because such motion may be used to control the focus of an imaging system with a sample so as to prevent degradation of imaging of the sample, such as suggested in ¶ 61 and 62 of Hombo. Accordingly, such a motion allows for control of both the focus of the sample being imaged and the vibrations which can affect said focus, such as suggested in ¶ 62 and 63 of Hombo.
As to claim 12: Segale as modified by Li and Hombo teaches the method of claim 11, wherein: the structures governing focus settings (see Segale col. 8, lines 38-60) for an imaging system (100 of Segale; see fig. 2) control the focus of an objective lens (122 of Segale) aligned along the z-axis orthogonal to the x-y plane (see Segale col. 8, lines 22-49 regarding lens 122).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 14, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 13: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan the method of claim 1, additionally comprising setting the starting time, amplitude profile and (emphasis added) time during of at least some of the acceleration intervals before (emphasis added) moving the component, when considered in combination with the other limitations of the instant claim and those of parent claim 1.
In particular, while it is known from the prior art to relate a cycle of measurement of vibration to utilize a PWM signal which can be sent prior to an input of a vibration actuator component (see ¶ 70 and 73 of Cruz Hernandenz et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0384396 A1), but there is no disclosure, teaching, suggestion, or motivation available in the cited prior art of record to render obvious setting a starting time, amplitude profile, and (emphasis added) time during of at least some of a number of acceleration intervals before (emphasis added) moving a component of an apparatus moved by motion commands when considered with the limitations of both claims 1 and 13.
As to claim 14: The claim depends ultimately from claim 13 and accordingly is also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 18: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a method for controlling stage motion for an apparatus for imaging having at least one mechanical resonance with frequency f Hz wherein the mechanical resonance frequency f is between 1 and 250 Hz, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
In particular, although it is known that mechanical systems may have a resonance with a frequency f that is between 1 and 250 Hz (see, for example, Toda et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0217484 A1 ¶ 57), there does not appear to be a disclosure, teaching, suggestion, or motivation available in the cited prior art of record that would render obvious modifying Segale nor any of the other cited available prior art to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention as set forth by claim 18.
As to claim 19: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a method for controlling stage motion for an apparatus for imaging having at least one mechanical resonance with frequency f Hz wherein the mechanical resonance frequency f is between 3 and 15 Hz, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
Similar to claim 18 above, the closest available prior art appears to be Toda et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0217484 A1 which discloses in ¶ 57 a frequency between 3 and 15 Hz but there does not appear to be a disclosure, teaching, suggestion, or motivation available in the cited prior art of record that would render obvious modifying Segale nor any of the other cited available prior art to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention as set forth by claim 19.
As to claim 20: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a method for controlling stage motion for an apparatus for imaging having at least one mechanical resonance with frequency f Hz wherein the mechanical resonance frequency f is between 7 and 10 Hz, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
Similar to claims 18 and 19 above, the closest available prior art appears to be Toda et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0217484 A1 which discloses in ¶ 57 a frequency between 7 and 10 Hz but there does not appear to be a disclosure, teaching, suggestion, or motivation available in the cited prior art of record that would render obvious modifying Segale nor any of the other cited available prior art to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention as set forth by claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights