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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response of 5/22/2026. In that response, Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 17, 19-20 and cancelled claims 2, 4, 8, 16.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/434,479 filed on 2/6/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 is dependent from claim 16 which has been cancelled. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that claim 7 depends from claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9-12, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okugawa (US 2006/0072190, hereinafter, “Okugawa”) in view of Morales (US 2023/0072737, hereinafter, “Morales”).
Regarding claim 1, Okugawa discloses a specimen chamber 10 for use with a sample imager (Fig. 1, [0035]), comprising:
a chamber housing 14 (Fig. 1, [0035]) comprising:
a first face (bottom of 14) and a second face (top of 14) opposite each other along a first direction Z, wherein the first face is configured to face an imaging lens 22, the second face is configured to mount with a lid 12 having a window (top surface of 12), and the first face is spaced from the second face in a lens-facing direction along the first direction (Fig. 1, 4, [0012], [0035]-[0036], [0040]). The top surface of lid 12 is transparent, i.e., it is a window, so that the specimen is observed);
first (left side of 14) and second (right side of 14) end walls opposite each other along a second direction X substantially perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 1); and
first (front side of 14) and second (rear side of 14) sidewalls opposite each other along a third direction Y substantially perpendicular to the first and second directions (Fig. 1),
wherein the first and second end walls and the first and second sidewalls substantially enclose an interior volume with respect to the first and second directions, and the interior volume is configured to contain a local environment S therein (Fig. 1, [0035]); and
an air actuator unit P1 (Fig. 1, 2, [0046]-[0047], [0050], [0052]).
Okugawa discloses the specimen chamber of claim 1.
Okugawa does not disclose wherein the air actuator unit comprises an air actuator, a duct member, and an outlet port, wherein the air actuator is configured to induct air from exterior of the specimen chamber and direct the inducted air into a channel defined by the duct member, the channel being configured to direct the inducted air to the outlet port, wherein the air actuator unit comprises an outlet member at least partially defining an outlet passageway that terminates at the outlet port, wherein the outlet member has an outlet base surface that faces a portion of the first face of the chamber housing such that the portion of the first face and the outlet base surface partially define the outlet passageway, and the outlet base surface is substantially parallel with the first face, thereby causing the inducted air exiting the outlet port to flow in a direction substantially parallel to the first face and into a region between the imaging lens and the first
face for inhibiting or at least reducing condensation accumulation on the imaging lens.
Morales discloses a fogging preventing apparatus 100 (Fig. 1, Abstract) comprising an air actuator unit comprising an air actuator 106, a duct member 108 and an outlet port 120, wherein the air actuator 106 inducts air and directs the inducted air into a channel defined by the duct 108 and from therein to the outlet port 120 (Fig. 1, [0051]-[0052]).
Both Okugawa and Morales address the issue of preventing fogging of a surface/environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Okugawa so that air is fed into the specimen chamber 10 (at point 55a in Fig. 2) via a fogging apparatus 100, as disclosed by Morales, for directing air from the exterior into the specimen chamber along a desired direction, for maintaining desired humidity conditions in the vicinity of the specimen ([0001] in Morales).
It is noted that in the modified Okugawa/Morales specimen chamber, the air actuator unit comprises an outlet member 114 in communication with the duct 108, the outlet member at least partially defining an outlet passageway that terminates at the outlet port 120 (Fig.1, [0051]-[0052] in Morales). In addition, in the modified Okugawa/Morales specimen chamber, the outlet member 114 has an outlet base surface (bottom surface) that faces a portion of the first face of the chamber housing 14 (see Fig. 2 in Okugawa) such that the portion of the first face and the outlet base surface partially define the outlet passageway, and the outlet base surface is substantially parallel with the first face, thereby causing the inducted air exiting the outlet port to flow in a direction substantially parallel to the first face and into a region between the imaging lens and the first face for inhibiting or at least reducing condensation accumulation on the imaging lens. The base surface of 114 of 100 of Morales is parallel with the first (bottom surface) of 14 of Okugawa.
Regarding claim 3, Okugawa/Morales discloses the specimen chamber of claim 1, wherein the air actuator comprises a fan 106 (Fig. 1, [0051] in Morales).
Regarding claim 9, Okugawa/Morales discloses the specimen chamber of claim 1, further comprising a heating element 52 configured to heat the interior volume of the specimen chamber (Fig. 2, [0047]-[0048] in Okugawa).
Regarding claim 10, Okugawa/Morales discloses the specimen chamber of claim 9, wherein the heating element is configured to heat the interior volume of the specimen
chamber to a temperature in a range of about 30° C. to about 40° C ([0072] in Okugawa).
Regarding claim 11, Okugawa/Morales discloses the specimen chamber of claim 9, wherein
at least a portion of the heating element is adjacent to the channel, such that the inducted air is directed along the at least the portion of the heating element, wherein the inducted air is heated by the heating element (in the modified apparatus of Okugawa/Morales, under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation principle, the heating element 52 of Okugawa is adjacent to the channel of the air actuator of Morales positioned at joint portion 55a, wherein the inducted air is heated by the heating element and directed along a portion of the heating element 52 (Fig. 2 in Okugawa).
Regarding claim 12, Okugawa/Morales discloses the specimen chamber of claim 1, further comprising at least one temperature sensor configured to measure temperature at the target location ([0053] in Okugawa ).
Regarding claim 15, Okugawa discloses a system for sample imaging (Fig. 1, [0011]), the system comprising
a control unit 50 (Fig. 2, [0047]) for delivering conditioned air; and
a specimen chamber 10 (Fig. 2, [0035]) comprising:
a chamber housing 14 having an upper face (top of 14), a lower face (bottom of 14) opposite the upper face, and walls (left side of 14, right side of 14) that extend vertically between the upper and lower faces, wherein the walls define an interior volume of the specimen chamber, and the lower face is configured to face an imaging lens 22 (Fig. 1, [0035]); and
an air actuator unit P1 (Fig. 1, [0046]-[0047], [0050], [0052]).
Okugawa discloses the specimen chamber of claim 1.
Okugawa does not disclose wherein the air actuator unit comprises an air actuator, a duct member, and an outlet port, wherein the air actuator is configured to induct air from exterior of the specimen chamber and direct the inducted air into a channel defined by the duct member, the channel being configured to direct the inducted air to the outlet port, wherein the air actuator unit comprises an outlet member at least partially defining an outlet passageway that terminates at the outlet port, wherein the outlet member has an outlet base surface that faces a portion of the lower face of the chamber housing such that the portion of the lower face and the outlet base surface partially define the outlet passageway, and the outlet base surface is substantially parallel with the lower face, thereby causing the inducted air exiting the outlet port to flow in a direction substantially parallel to the lower face and into a region between the imaging lens and the lower
face for inhibiting or at least reducing condensation accumulation on the imaging lens.
Morales discloses a fogging preventing apparatus 100 (Fig. 1, Abstract) comprising an air actuator unit comprising an air actuator 106, a duct member 108 and an outlet port 120, wherein the air actuator 106 inducts air and directs the inducted air into a channel defined by the duct 108 and from therein to the outlet port 120 (Fig. 1, [0051]-[0052]).
Both Okugawa and Morales address the issue of preventing fogging of a surface/environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Okugawa so that air is fed into the specimen chamber 10 (at point 55a in Fig. 2) via a fogging apparatus 100, as disclosed by Morales, for directing air from the exterior into the specimen chamber along a desired direction, for maintaining desired humidity conditions in the vicinity of the specimen ([0001] in Morales).
It is noted that in the modified Okugawa/Morales specimen chamber, the air actuator unit comprises an outlet member 114 in communication with the duct 108, the outlet member at least partially defining an outlet passageway that terminates at the outlet port 120 (Fig.1, [0051]-[0052] in Morales). In addition, in the modified Okugawa/Morales specimen chamber, the outlet member 114 has an outlet base surface (bottom surface) that faces a portion of the lower face of the chamber housing 14 (see Fig. 2 in Okugawa) such that the portion of the lower face and the outlet base surface partially define the outlet passageway, and the outlet base surface is substantially parallel with the lower face, thereby causing the inducted air exiting the outlet port to flow in a direction substantially parallel to the lower face and into a region between the imaging lens and the lower face for inhibiting or at least reducing condensation accumulation on the imaging lens. The base surface of 114 of 100 of Morales is parallel with the first (bottom/lower surface) of 14 of Okugawa.
Regarding claim 17, Okugawa/Morales discloses the system of claim 15, wherein
the air actuator comprises a fan (Fig. 1, [0051] in Morales), and the specimen chamber comprises at least one heater 52 (Fig. 2 in Okugawa) located alongside the channel, wherein the at least one heater is configured to heat the inducted air prior to the inducted air exiting the outlet port (in the modified apparatus of Okugawa/Morales, under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation principle, the heating element 52 of Okugawa is located alongside the channel of the air actuator of Morales positioned at joint portion 55a, wherein the inducted air is heated by the heating element prior to exiting the outlet port of the air actuator of Morales (Fig. 2 in Okugawa)).
Claims 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okugawa, Morales in view of Bathe (US 2005/0196325, hereinafter, “Bathe”).
Regarding claim 13, Okugawa/Morales discloses the specimen chamber of claim 1.
Okugawa/Morales does not disclose further comprising a lid, wherein the lid is configured for repeated attachment to and detachment from the second face of the chamber housing, and the lid comprises at least one of a heating element or a thermal insulating layer.
Bathe discloses a specimen vessel (Fig. 1, Abstract). In one embodiment, the specimen chamber MTP is covered by a displaceable cover DL that includes heating elements ([0010], [0019]).
Both Okugawa and Bathe disclose specimen chambers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Okugawa/Morales so that the cover 12 of Okugawa/Morales includes a heating element, as disclosed by Bathe, for further controlling the heating of the specimen chamber 10 (it is noted that under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation principle, the lid 12 repeatedly attaches and detaches from the second (top) face of the chamber 14).
Regarding claim 14, Okugawa/Morales/Bathe discloses the specimen chamber of claim 13, wherein
the lid comprises a lid heating element, and the lid hearing element is configured to heat the specimen chamber to a temperature in a range of about 30° C. to about 40° C ([0019] in Bathe, [0072] in Okugawa).
Regarding claim 19, Okugawa/Morales discloses the system of claim 15.
Okugawa/Morales does not disclose further comprising a lid, wherein the lid is configured for repeated attachment to and detachment from the second face of the chamber housing, and the lid comprises at least one of a heating element or a thermal insulating layer.
Bathe discloses a specimen vessel (Fig. 1, Abstract). In one embodiment, the specimen chamber MTP is covered by a displaceable cover DL that includes heating elements ([0010], [0019]).
Both Okugawa and Bathe disclose specimen chambers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Okugawa/Morales so that the cover 12 of Okugawa/Morales includes a heating element, as disclosed by Bathe, for further controlling the heating of the specimen chamber 10 (it is noted that under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation principle, the lid 12 repeatedly attaches and detaches from the second (top) face of the chamber 14).
Regarding claim 20, Okugawa/Morales/Bathe discloses the system of claim 19, wherein
the lid comprises a lid heating element, and the lid hearing element is configured to heat the specimen chamber to a temperature in a range of about 30° C. to about 40° C ([0019] in Bathe, [0072] in Okugawa).
Claims 5-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okugawa, Morales in view of Ehrmann et al. (US 2024/0367619, hereinafter, “Ehrmann”).
Regarding claim 5, Okugawa/Morales discloses the specimen chamber of claim 1.
Okugawa/Morales does not disclose wherein the outlet member comprises fins that protrude within the outlet passageway and are configured to direct the flow of air exiting the outlet port.
Ehrmann discloses a cleaning apparatus for cleaning a closed area by using compressed air ([0006]). In one embodiment, the compressed air apparatus comprises heat conducting fins 46 provided in a supply channel 42 that transfer heat (Fig. 8, [0067]).
Both Okugawa and Ehrmann disclose means for transferring air/heat from one spot to another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Okugawa/Morales so that air is fed into the specimen chamber 10 of Okugawa via the fogging apparatus of Morales, which comprises fins before the outlet port, as disclosed by Ehrmann, for directing air from the exterior into the specimen chamber more effectively ([0067] in Ehrmann).
Regarding claim 6, Okugawa/Morales/Ehrmann discloses the specimen chamber of claim 5, wherein
the fins are elongated along respective directions that diverge from each other in a downstream direction, thereby causing the inducted air to spread outwardly as the inducted air exits the outlet port (Fig. 8 in Ehrmann).
Regarding claim 7, Okugawa/Morales/Ehrmann discloses the specimen chamber of claim 5, wherein the fins extend from the outlet base surface along a direction opposite the lens-facing direction (in the modified apparatus of Okugawa/Morales/Ehrmann, the fins 46 extend from the outlet base surface of 114 along a direction opposite the lens-facing direction of 14).
Regarding claim 18, Okugawa/Morales discloses the system of claim 17.
Okugawa/Morales does not disclose wherein the outlet port includes fins that are elongated along respective directions that diverge from each other in a downstream direction, thereby causing the inducted air to spread outwardly as the inducted air exits the outlet port.
Ehrmann discloses a cleaning apparatus for cleaning a closed area by using compressed air ([0006]). In one embodiment, the compressed air apparatus comprises heat conducting fins 46 provided in a supply channel 42 that transfer heat (Fig. 8, [0067]).
Both Okugawa and Ehrmann disclose means for transferring air/heat from one spot to another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Okugawa/Morales so that air is fed into the specimen chamber 10 of Okugawa via the fogging apparatus of Morales, which comprises fins before the outlet port, as disclosed by Ehrmann, for directing air from the exterior into the specimen chamber more effectively ([0067] in Ehrmann. In Fig. 8 of Ehrmann, the fins 46 are elongated along respective directions that diverge from each other in a downstream direction).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding independent claim 1 (similarly for independent claim 15) Applicant stated “[e]ven if Okugawa and Morales were combined, the combination would not result in the claimed limitations requiring the outlet member [to have] an outlet base surface that faces a portion of the [first/lower] face of the chamber housing such that the portion of the [first/lower] face and the outlet base surface partially define the outlet passageway," or requiring "the inducted air exiting the outlet port to flow in a direction substantially parallel to the [first/lower] face and into a region between the imaging lens and the [first/lower] face.", see p. 7 of the Remarks.
Applicant's above argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive for the reasons explained above. The combination of Okugawa and Morales discloses the actuator unit 100 (Fig. 1 in Morales) with the outlet member 114 being positioned with the claimed relationship with the chamber housing 14 of Okugawa (Fig. 2 in Okugawa).
Applicant also stated “the proposed combination of Okugawa and Morales lacks adequate motivation to combine. Morales may generally disclose airflow components, but Morales does not disclose or suggest modifying Okugawa so that "the portion of the [first/lower] face and the outlet base surface partially define the outlet passageway." Nor does the Office Action provides a sufficient reason why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Okugawa to cause "the inducted air exiting the outlet port to flow in a direction substantially parallel to the [first/lower] face and into a region between the imaging lens and the [first/lower] face." A generalized rationale based on fogging prevention or environmental control does not explain why one would specifically redesign Okugawa to arrive at the claimed limitations. Rejection therefore appears to rely on Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap and hindsight.”, see p. 8 of the Remarks.
In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Moreover, in response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Office provided a specific rationale based on fogging prevention or environmental control. Regarding, “specifically redesign[ing] Okugawa to arrive at the claimed limitations”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant stated “the proposed combination of Okugawa and Morales is inconsistent with Okugawa's operating approach. Okugawa addresses condensation through controlled environmental management, including maintaining controlled spaces and avoiding conditions that would introduce room-temperature atmospheric air into the region between the chamber and lens. The amended claims, by contrast, require the air actuator unit to "induct air from an exterior of the specimen chamber" and direct that air through a passageway configured so that "the inducted air exiting the outlet port [flows] in a direction substantially parallel to the [first/lower] face and into a region between the imaging lens and the [first/lower] face." [The] Office Action has not provided a sufficient reason why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Okugawa in this manner.”, see p. 8 of the Remarks.
The combination of Okugawa and Morales is consistent with Okugawa’s operating approach because the air actuator unit 100 of Morales addresses condensation in a closed environment through controlled environmental management, i.e., air circulation in the interior of a closed environment. Moreover, as discussed above, the incorporation of the air actuator of Morales into the chamber housing of Okugawa discloses all the above quoted features.
Finally, Applicant stated “[n]either Ehrmann nor Bathe cure these deficiencies. Ehrmann alleged to disclose fins and airflow-direction features, but Ehrmann does not teach or suggest the claim requiring "the portion of the [first/lower] face and the outlet base surface [to] partially define the outlet passageway," or requiring airflow "into a region between the imaging lens and the [first/lower] face." While Bathe is alleged to disclose a heated or insulated lid, Bathe does not however teach or suggest the claimed air actuator arrangement or the quoted outlet-passageway geometry. Adding fins from Ehrmann or a heated/insulated lid from Bathe would not remedy the
missing structure limitations and/or motivation in the proposed combination of cited references.”, see p. 8 of the Remarks.
In response to Applicant's above arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the above reasons.
The rejection of claims 1 and 15 and their dependents is maintained.
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 LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights