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 § 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.
Claims 5-8 are 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.
Claim 5 recites in line 2 “at least one guide” this is indefinite in that it is unclear if this is the same element as the “guide rod” recited in claim 1 or an additional element.
Claim 6 recites in lines 1-2 “the adjustable optical elements are each arranged together with the drive on a carriage” this is indefinite in that it is unclear if the carriages recited in the claim are the same carriages as recited in claim 1 or additional elements.
Claim 7 recites in lines 1-2 “wherein the adjustable optical elements are each arranged together with a friction rail” this is indefinite in that it is unclear if the friction rails recited in the claim are the same friction rails as recited in claim 1 or additional elements.
Claim 8 is rejected due to its dependency.
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) and Wischnewskij et al. (US Pub. 20100085649, Wischnewskij’649).
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) and further comprising carriages (upper movable bracket 40 and lower movable bracket 32) movable along guide rods (endless threaded screws 36 and 38).
Hoover does not teach that the drives are piezo motor drives wherein each of the piezo motor drives includes a friction rail, an actuator, and a transmission element, the actuator being mounted in a fixed position on a frame of the microscope, the friction rail being connected to a carriage movable along a guide rod, the transmission element being positioned between the friction rail and the actuator, the actuator generating a movement that is transmitted to the friction rail by the transmission element, and the transmission element converting a force acting laterally with respect to an optical axis of the optical beam path into a force acting axially along the optical axis.
However, Wischnewskij teaches (in figures 6-8, 10, 14, and 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 (guide groove 42 and travelers 56) 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 (paragraph 58) wherein each of the piezo motor drives includes a friction rail (traveler 56), an actuator (ultrasonic actuator 33/piezoelectric plate 1), and a transmission element (guide groove 42), the actuator being mounted in a fixed position on a frame of the device (paragraph 58), the friction rail being connected to a carriage (mobile element 49), the transmission element being positioned between the friction rail and the actuator, the actuator generating a movement that is transmitted to the friction rail by the transmission element, and the transmission element converting a force acting laterally with respect to an optical axis of the optical beam path into a force acting axially along the optical axis (see paragraphs 44-45 and 62-64) which provides an adjustment means with low energy consumption and high positioning accuracy (paragraph 2).
Additionally, Wischnewskij’649 providing guide rods (28) for carriages (mobile elements 16) connected to friction rails (friction elements 14) to move along (paragraph 59).
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 and to provide the guide rods from Wischnewskij’649 in order to help stabilize the lens elements as the move along the optical axis.
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 and Wischnewskij’649 teaches that at least one guide (the other of one of each of the pairs guides 28 from Wischnewskij’649) 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 and Wischnewskij’649 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 (upper movable bracket 40 and lower movable bracket 32 in Hoover corresponding to mobile element 49 in Wischnewskij and mobile elements 16 in Wischnewskij’649) which can be moved along the guide (the other of one of each of the pairs guides 28 from Wischnewskij’649).
As per claim 7, Hoover in view of Wischnewskij and Wischnewskij’649 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 a friction rail (traveler 56 from Wischnewskij) movable by the action of the drive on a carriage which can be moved along the guide.
As per claim 8, Hoover in view of Wischnewskij and Wischnewskij’649 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 16 of Wischnewskij which connects spring 52 and traveler 56 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 guide grooves 42 and generators 7 and 8 of the piezoelectric ultrasonic actuator 33/piezoelectric plate 1 onto the travelers 56 from Wischnewskij and guide rods 28 from Wischnewskij’649).
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).
As per claim 14, Hoover 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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover et al. (USP 6268957, Hoover), Wischnewskij et al. (US Pub. 20110175489, Wischnewskij), and Wischnewskij et al. (US Pub. 20100085649, Wischnewskij’649) 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) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover et al. (USP 6268957, Hoover), Wischnewskij et al. (US Pub. 20110175489, Wischnewskij), and Wischnewskij et al. (US Pub. 20100085649, Wischnewskij’649) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights