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 .
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) 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover et al. (USP 6268957, Hoover) in view of Wischnewskij et al. (US Pub. 20110175489, Wischnewskij).
As per claim 1, Hoover teaches (in figures 1-6) a microscope with at least one optical beam path, comprising a plurality of optical elements (upper pair of lens sets 26 & 28 and lower pair of lens sets 22 & 24), of which at least two per beam path are adjustable along the beam path and relative to one another in order to effect a change in an optical magnification of an image generated by means of the optical beam path (upper lens set 26 and lower lens set 24 are formed on the upper movable bracket 40 and lower movable bracket 32 respectively, see Col. 5 lines 6-67); an operating device for selecting the magnification (computer screen shown in figure 6 used to select the magnification see Col. 6 lines 1-45); a gearbox (endless threaded screws 36 and 38) for generating and transmitting a respective travel of the adjustable optical elements along the optical beam path (Col. 5 lines 15-18), which positioning displacement is associated with a magnification selected on the operating device (Col. 6 lines 1-45) and effected by means of a drive (stepper motor, Col. 5 lines 15-18); wherein a drive is assigned to each of the adjustable optical elements of an optical beam path or to respectively corresponding adjustable optical elements of the beam paths, so that the adjustable optical elements of an optical beam path can be displaced independently of one another (Col. 5 lines 6-67).
Hoover does not teach that the drives are piezo motor drives.
However, Wischnewskij teaches (in figure 17) a lens movement system comprising an optical beam path, comprising a plurality of optical elements (optical lenses 65) which are adjustable along the beam path and relative to one another; a gearbox (friction element 34 and one of each of the pairs guides 67) for generating and transmitting a respective travel of the adjustable optical elements along the optical beam path; wherein a drive (ultrasonic actuator 33/piezoelectric plate 1) is assigned to each of the adjustable optical elements of an optical beam path so that the adjustable optical elements of an optical beam path can be displaced independently of one another; and the drives are piezo motor drives (paragraphs 59 and 84) which provides an adjustment means with low energy consumption and high positioning accuracy (paragraph 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hoover such that the adjustable optical elements are driven using the lens movement system of Wischnewskij in order to drive the adjustable optical elements by a means which has low energy consumption and high positioning accuracy.
As per claim 2, Hoover in view of Wischnewskij teaches that the magnifications are dynamically adjustable within a technically predetermined magnification range (see Col. 5 lines 37-45 and Col. 6 lines 26-33 in Hoover).
As per claim 3, Hoover in view of Wischnewskij teaches that the piezo motor drives (ultrasonic actuator 33/piezoelectric plate 1 from Wischnewskij) are each operated with stator frequencies in the ultrasonic range (see paragraph 43 in Wischnewskij).
As per claim 5, Hoover in view of Wischnewskij teaches that at least one guide (the other of one of each of the pairs guides 67 from Wischnewskij) arranged parallel along a section of the optical beam path is provided for each optical beam path; and the optical elements (upper lens set 26 and lower lens set 24 in Hoover corresponding to optical lenses 65 in Wischnewskij) which can be adjusted and moved along the optical beam path are attached to the guide.
As per claim 6, Hoover in view of Wischnewskij teaches that the adjustable optical elements (upper lens set 26 and lower lens set 24 in Hoover corresponding to optical lenses 65 in Wischnewskij) are each arranged together with the drive (ultrasonic actuator 33/piezoelectric plate 1 from Wischnewskij) on a carriage (baseplate 47 from Wischnewskij) which can be moved along the guide (the other of one of each of the pairs guides 67 from Wischnewskij).
As per claim 7, Hoover teaches (in figures 1-6) a microscope with at least one optical beam path, comprising a plurality of optical elements (upper pair of lens sets 26 & 28 and lower pair of lens sets 22 & 24), of which at least two per beam path are adjustable along the beam path and relative to one another in order to effect a change in an optical magnification of an image generated by means of the optical beam path (upper lens set 26 and lower lens set 24 are formed on the upper movable bracket 40 and lower movable bracket 32 respectively, see Col. 5 lines 6-67); an operating device for selecting the magnification (computer screen shown in figure 6 used to select the magnification see Col. 6 lines 1-45); a gearbox (endless threaded screws 36 and 38) for generating and transmitting a respective travel of the adjustable optical elements along the optical beam path (Col. 5 lines 15-18), which positioning displacement is associated with a magnification selected on the operating device (Col. 6 lines 1-45) and effected by means of a drive (stepper motor, Col. 5 lines 15-18); wherein a drive is assigned to each of the adjustable optical elements of an optical beam path or to respectively corresponding adjustable optical elements of the beam paths, so that the adjustable optical elements of an optical beam path can be displaced independently of one another (Col. 5 lines 6-67) at least one guide (rail 34) arranged parallel along a section of the optical beam path is provided for each optical beam path; and the optical elements which can be adjusted and moved along the optical beam path are attached to the guide.
Hoover does not teach that the drives are piezo motor drives wherein the adjustable optical elements are each arranged together with a friction rail movable by the action of the drive on a carriage which can be moved along the guide.
However, Wischnewskij teaches (in figure 16) a lens movement system comprising an optical beam path, comprising a plurality of optical elements (optical lenses 65) which are adjustable along the beam path and relative to one another; a gearbox (friction element 34) for generating and transmitting a respective travel of the adjustable optical elements along the optical beam path; wherein a drive (ultrasonic actuator 33/piezoelectric plate 1) is assigned to each of the adjustable optical elements of an optical beam path so that the adjustable optical elements of an optical beam path can be displaced independently of one another; and the drives are piezo motor drives (paragraphs 59 and 83); at least one guide (one of the travelers 56 corresponding to each ultrasonic actuator 33/piezoelectric plate 1) arranged parallel along a section of the optical beam path; and the optical elements which can be adjusted and moved along the optical beam path are attached to the guide; and the adjustable optical elements (optical lenses 65) are each arranged together with a friction rail (the other one of the travelers 56 corresponding to each ultrasonic actuator 33/piezoelectric plate 1) movable by the action of the drive (ultrasonic actuator 33/piezoelectric plate 1) on a carriage (mobile element 49) which can be moved along the guide (one of the travelers 56 corresponding to each ultrasonic actuator 33/piezoelectric plate 1) which provides an adjustment means with low energy consumption and high positioning accuracy (paragraph 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hoover such that the adjustable optical elements are driven using the lens movement system of Wischnewskij in order to drive the adjustable optical elements by a means which has low energy consumption and high positioning accuracy.
As per claim 8, Hoover in view of Wischnewskij teaches that the drives (ultrasonic actuator 33/piezoelectric plate 1 from Wischnewskij) are each provided with a coupling element (upper and lower movable brackets 32 and 40 in Hoover/brackets shown in figure 17 of Wischnewskij which connects base plate 47 to optical lens 65), by means of which a positioning force of the drive is transmitted or can be transmitted to the respective adjustable optical element (upper lens set 26 and lower lens set 24 in Hoover corresponding to optical lenses 65 in Wischnewskij); wherein a force action on the adjustable optical element on the part of the coupling element takes place in the direction of the course of the optical beam path (the movable brackets are forced up and down by the force/motion of the friction element 24 and generators 7 and 8 of the piezoelectric ultrasonic actuator 33/piezoelectric plate 1 onto the guides 67 from Wischnewskij).
As per claim 9, Hoover in view of Wischnewskij teaches a control device (computer shown in figure 6 of Hoover and electrical excitation device 23 from Wischnewskij) for generating control commands and for actuating the drives (ultrasonic actuator 33/piezoelectric plate 1 from Wischnewskij) by means of the control commands, wherein the control commands are generated on the basis of a control function, and wherein the control function encodes relative positions of the adjustable optical elements (upper lens set 26 and lower lens set 24 in Hoover corresponding to optical lenses 65 in Wischnewskij) as a function of their current position and the selected magnification (see Col. 6 lines 1-45 in Hoover and paragraphs 42-45 of Wischnewskij).
As per claim 10, Hoover in view of Wischnewskij teaches a command memory (lookup table see Col. 6 lines 1-45 in Hoover) is provided, in which a plurality of selectable control functions is stored or can be stored, wherein a respectively selected control function can be retrieved and executed by means of the control device (computer shown in figure 6 of Hoover and electrical excitation device 23 from Wischnewskij) (see Col. 6 lines 1-45 in Hoover).
As per claim 11, Hoover in view of Wischnewskij teaches that the retrievable control functions comprise different relationships between the positioning movements of the adjustable optical elements (upper lens set 26 and lower lens set 24 in Hoover corresponding to optical lenses 65 in Wischnewskij) and a respective realized adjustment displacement and/or an adjustment speed of the operating device (computer screen shown in figure 6 used to select the magnification and the computer stores different lookup tables for the correct position of the lenses for a different magnifications as the relative positioning of the two movable lenses is not linear see Col. 5 line 46 to Col. 6 line 45).
As per claim 12, Hoover in view of Wischnewskij teaches that the retrievable control functions realize different coded fixed magnifications (the microscope can achieve magnifications ranging from 3.75 times to 258 times see Col. 5 lines 57-45 in Hoover, the computer stores different lookup tables for the correct position of the lenses for a different magnifications as the relative positioning of the two movable lenses is not linear, and positions the lenses in the correct location for a selected magnification using the stored values in the lookup tables see Col. 5 line 46 to Col. 6 line 45 in Hoover).
As per claim 13, Hoover in view of Wischnewskij teaches that the control functions are modifiable by a user (lookup tables are created by the user see Col. 6 lines 7-10 in Hoover).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover et al. (USP 6268957, Hoover) and Wischnewskij et al. (US Pub. 20110175489, Wischnewskij) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Wischnewskiy et al. (US Pub. 20180183354, Wischnewskiy).
As per claim 4, Hoover in view of Wischnewskij does not explicitly teach that the dynamic positioning accuracy of one positioning movement per drive is less than 10 µm.
However, Wischnewskiy teaches positioning accuracy of down to 0.1 µm and that the positioning accuracy ultrasonic actuator drives is a result effective variable in that as accuracy increases speed decreases (paragraph 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the drive speed and position accuracy such that the dynamic positioning accuracy of one positioning movement per drive is less than 10 µm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover et al. (USP 6268957, Hoover) and Wischnewskij et al. (US Pub. 20110175489, Wischnewskij) as applied to claim 9 above and in further view of Wischnewskij et al. (US Pub. 20100085649, Wischnewskij’649).
As per claim 14, Hoover in view of Wischnewskij does not teach that each of the drives is provided with a displacement measuring system by means of which a current position of the elements of the drive is measured and made available to the control device for evaluation.
However, Wischnewskij’649 teaches (in figures 1, 11 and 14) providing drives with a displacement measuring system (position sensor 21) by means of which a current position of the elements of the drive is measured and made available to a control device (electronic control unit 50) for evaluation (paragraphs 71 and 73).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the displacement measuring system from Wischnewskij’649 into the device of Hoover in view of Wischnewskij.
The motivation would have been to provide a means of accurately positioning the lenses.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover et al. (USP 6268957, Hoover) and Wischnewskij et al. (US Pub. 20110175489, Wischnewskij) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Bae et al. (US Pub. 20100141606, Bae).
As per claim 15, Hoover in view of Wischnewskij does not teach that a transmission of input commands of a user at the operating device to the control device takes place using the force feedback technology method.
However, Bae teaches (in figures 1-2) providing an actuator (205) and a touch panel (230) as part of display (200) in order to provide haptic feedback to a user using the display screen in order to minimize input error (paragraph 57).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hoover in view of Wischnewskij to include the touch panel and actuator from Bae in order to provide force feedback to the user.
The motivation would have been to minimize input error.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871