Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/387,833

MICROSCOPY SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A MICROSCOPY SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 07, 2023
Examiner
SHAHNAMI, AMIR
Art Unit
2483
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Carl Zeiss Meditec AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
345 granted / 427 resolved
+22.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
442
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.1%
-35.9% vs TC avg
§103
49.2%
+9.2% vs TC avg
§102
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
§112
12.5%
-27.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 427 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 5-13 and 17 are pending for examination. 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 Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim under EP 21 172 758 filed on 5/7/2021. 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. Claim(s) 5, 6, 13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saur et al, US 2019/0328464 A1 (Saur), in view of Utter et al, US 2021/0116580 A1 (Utter). Regarding Claim 5, Saur discloses a microscopy system, comprising: a microscope having a settable working distance of the microscope and at least one tracking camera for pose detection of at least one marker at a working distance of the tracking camera; at least one device configured to determine the working distance of the microscope; a tracking illumination devices and at least one optical element for beam guidance of the radiation generated by the tracking illumination device; and at least one controller configured to control the tracking illumination devices, in which an operating mode and/or an illumination region of the tracking illumination devices is set based on the working distance of the microscope (Saur [0057] – the microscope can be controlled, in a position-tracking mode, in such a way that it executes the same changes of position as the target; [0058] – Overall, a microscopy system is advantageously obtained with which an operation of the microscopy system, in particular a movement of the microscope and/or the adjustment of operating parameters of the microscope, can be controlled reliably, precisely and rapidly on the basis of the movements of a body part, in particular a hand, of a user, an instrument moved by the user, an position or change of position of a patient, or a position or change of position of an item of operating theatre equipment; [0089] – a working distance, e.g., in the form of a focal position, of the image capture device is adjustable on the basis of the distance of the target from the image capture device, which can also be designated as the target distance. In particular, the working distance can be adjusted proportionally to the target distance in such a way that, as the target distance increases, the detection range of the image capture device becomes smaller; [0180] – operating parameters of the microscope, for example a zoom and/or a focus, can be adjusted according to the detected position, in particular the detected change of position, and/or an operating mode of the microscope 2). Even though Saur teaches a tracking illumination device with a beam, Saur does not explicitly disclose at least two tracking illumination devices for beam guidance of the radiation generated by the tracking illumination devices. Utter teaches at least two tracking illumination devices for beam guidance of the radiation generated by the tracking illumination devices (Utter Fig.6, [0054] – …cause the one of the plurality of tracking receivers to illuminate. The illumination of the one of the plurality of tracking receivers is based on the position. The set of instructions issued to each of the plurality of tracking receivers also results in an LED illuminating, together forming an image). Therefore, it 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 to modify Saur to have two tracking illumination devices, as taught by Utter. One would be motivated as multiple tracking illumination devices can better illuminate a subject by receiving light from different directions with different properties. Regarding Claim 6, Saur, in combination, further discloses the microscopy system as claimed in claim 5, wherein a plurality of the activated tracking illumination devices and/or an intensity of the radiation generated by the activated tracking illumination devices can be set based on the working distance of the microscope (Saur [0089] – a working distance, e.g., in the form of a focal position, of the image capture device is adjustable on the basis of the distance of the target from the image capture device, which can also be designated as the target distance. In particular, the working distance can be adjusted proportionally to the target distance in such a way that, as the target distance increases, the detection range of the image capture device becomes smaller; [0180] – operating parameters of the microscope, for example a zoom and/or a focus, can be adjusted according to the detected position, in particular the detected change of position, and/or an operating mode of the microscope 2). Even though Saur teaches a tracking illumination device, Saur does not explicitly teach more than one activated tracking illumination devices. Utter teachers more than one activated tracking illumination devices (Utter Fig.6, [0054] – …cause the one of the plurality of tracking receivers to illuminate. The illumination of the one of the plurality of tracking receivers is based on the position. The set of instructions issued to each of the plurality of tracking receivers also results in an LED illuminating, together forming an image). Therefore, it 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 to modify Saur to have one activated tracking illumination devices, as taught by Utter. One would be motivated as multiple tracking illumination devices can better illuminate a subject by receiving light from different directions with different properties. Regarding Claim 13, Saur and Utter teach the microscopy system as claimed in claim 5, as outlined above. However, Saur does not explicitly disclose at least one field of view illumination device, wherein the field of view illumination device is different from the tracking illumination devices. at least one field of view illumination device, wherein the field of view illumination device is different from the tracking illumination devices (Utter Fig.6 shows different orientations of the illumination devices). Therefore, it 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 to modify Saur to have the field of view illumination device is different from the tracking illumination devices, as taught by Utter. One would be motivated as different fields of view can better illuminate a subject by receiving light from different directions with different properties. With regard to claim 17, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 5 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 5 is applied to claim 17. Claim(s) 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saur and Utter, in view of Zapata et al, US 2019/0324253 A1 (Zapata). Regarding Claim 11, Saur and Utter teach the microscopy system as claimed in claim 5, as outlined above. However, Saur does not explicitly disclose optical axes of the optical elements for beam guidance intersect at a common point. Zapata teaches optical axes of the optical elements for beam guidance intersect at a common point (Zapata Fig.2-3, [0047] – At 104, the zoning for the FOV can be created. As an illustrative example, as illustrated in the example implementation 200 of FIG. 2, a light array 202 can be configured with one or more light modules 204. In this example, respective light modules 204 can be configured to provide illumination to a pre-determined zone 208, for example, based at least upon the light array configuration and the geometry of the FOV 206, such as created in the zoning (e.g., 104 of FIG. 1); [0049] – FIG. 3, respective light modules 304 can be configured with motion control and actuators that enable light beam change of incidence area in orthogonal axis at the FOV. In this illustrative example, 300, a base illumination zone 308 may be adjusted to alternate illumination zones 310, based at least on a panning and/or tilting of the light module 304, thereby resulting in a change in irradiation incidence at the FOV. Returning to FIG. 1, at 114, a position optimizer (e.g., optimizer subsystem) can resolve 1-n active light modules (e.g., 204) for the respective light arrays). Therefore, it 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 to modify Saur to have optical axes of the optical elements for beam guidance intersect at a common point, as taught by Zapata. One would be motivated to have the common point so a subject can be illuminated by more than one light source. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-10 and 12 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SHAHNAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-0707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571-272-7383. 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. /AMIR SHAHNAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 07, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 07, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 07, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604016
CONDITIONAL APPLICATION OF REFINEMENT TECHNIQUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598325
Signaling of Preselection Information in Media Files Based on a Movie-level Track Group Information Box
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593130
TRACKING CAMERA, TRACKING CAMERA SYSTEMS, AND OPERATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592081
ASSISTANCE CONTROLLING APPARATUS, ASSISTANCE CONTROLLING METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593051
COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY INDICATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+10.4%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 427 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month