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 .
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 1/27/2026 in which Applicant lists claim 4 as being cancelled, claims 2-3, 5-8, 10-12, 15 as being original, and claims 1, 9, 13-14 as being currently amended. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1-3, 5-15 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Regarding the numbering and/or order of dependent claims 12 and 15, Applicant is reminded that:
“A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed.” See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim Objections
The amendments to the claims dated 1/27/2026 are accepted. The objections to the claims cited in the office action mailed 11/14/2025 are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7 of the remarks, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims in view of Fahlbusch (US 2023/0116753) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the teachings of Amthor et al., US 2022/0114387 A1 which teaches microscope automation wherein sample information includes topography/height information of a currently used sample holder or of a currently used sample so that the apparatus is capable of preventing collisions between the objective and the sample (see at least paragraphs [0003], [0006], [0048]-[0049], [0082]-[0084]).
Moreover, Farrell et al. (US 9,215,425 B1), already made of record with respect to the rejection of claim 5 presently and in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/14/2025, discloses an observation sample surface is observed and a computer is used to perform an automatic focusing operation wherein the computer is programmed to stop actuation of a scanning mechanism when the objective approaches the surface of the sample in order to avoid contact and damage to the objective based on height differences of various locations on the sample surface (see at least col. 2, lines 10-40; and col. 4, line 16 through col. 5, line 3 of Farrell). Therefore, the newly added limitations wherein the region information comprises data about at least one of a topography of a currently used sample holder or a topography of a currently used sample are not considered to be novel and non-obvious.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-3, 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahlbusch et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0116753 A1, of record (hereafter Fahlbusch) in view of Amthor et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0114387 A1 (hereafter Amthor).
Regarding claim 1, Fahlbusch discloses an apparatus for a microscope system (see at least the title, abstract and paragraph [0040]), comprising one or more processors and one or more storage devices (see at least paragraphs [0036], [0100]), wherein the one or more processors are coupled to the one or more storage devices and the one or more processors are configured to:
receive region information about an accessible spatial region for an objective of the microscope system (see at least paragraphs [0040], [0049], [0053]-[0060], [0095], [0100]); and
trigger a restriction of a relative movement of the objective based on the region information (see at least paragraphs [0040], [0049], [0053]-[0060], [0095], [0100]).
Fahlbusch does not specifically disclose that the region information comprises data about at least one of a topography of a currently used sample holder or a topography of a currently used sample.
However, Amthor is also drawn to an apparatus for a microscope system (see at least figure 2 and the abstract of Amthor) wherein it is known for a controller to perform microscope automation wherein sample information includes topography/height information of a currently used sample holder or of a currently used sample so that the apparatus is capable of preventing collisions between the objective and the sample (see at least paragraphs [0003], [0006], [0048]-[0049], [0082]-[0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Fahlbusch to include the teachings of Amthor so that the region information comprises about at least one of a topography of a currently used sample holder or a topography of a currently used sample, for the purpose of controlling movement of the optical elements to maintain a safe working distance between sample and/or stage and the objective so that collisions with the objective may be prevented.
Regarding claim 2, Fahlbusch in view of Amthor discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the microscope system, relative position information about a relative position of the objective (see at least paragraphs [0040], [0049], [0053], [0056]-[0057], [0100] of Fahlbusch); compare the relative position of the objective and the accessible spatial region (see at least paragraphs [0040], [0049], [0053], [0056]-[0057], [0100] of Fahlbusch); and trigger the restriction of the relative movement of the objective based on the comparison of the region information and the relative position information (see at least paragraphs [0040], [0049], [0053], [0056]-[0057], [0100] of Fahlbusch).
Regarding claim 3, Fahlbusch in view of Amthor discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the restriction of the relative movement is a restriction in at least one of a direction perpendicular or a direction parallel to a focus plane of the objective (see at least paragraphs [0036], [0040], [0049], [0053], [0056]-[0057], [0100] of Fahlbusch).
Regarding claim 8, Fahlbusch in view of Amthor discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to trigger an output for informing a user of the microscope system about a relative movement restriction of the objective (see at least paragraph [0095] of Fahlbusch).
Regarding claim 9, Fahlbusch discloses an apparatus for a microscope system (see at least the title, abstract and paragraph [0040]), comprising one or more processors and one or more storage devices (see at least paragraphs [0036], [0100]), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive, from the microscope system, relative position information about a relative position of an objective of the microscope system (see at least paragraphs [0040], [0049], [0053]-[0060], [0095], [0100]);
compare the relative position information with an accessible spatial region for the objective (see at least paragraphs [0040], [0049], [0053]-[0060], [0095], [0100]); and
control a relative movement of the objective based on the comparison so that the objective of the microscope system stays within the accessible spatial region (see at least paragraphs [0040], [0049], [0053]-[0060], [0095], [0100]).
Fahlbusch does not specifically disclose that the accessible spatial region is determined based on data about at least one of a topography of a currently used sample holder or a topography of a currently used sample.
However, Amthor is also drawn to an apparatus for a microscope system (see at least figure 2 and the abstract of Amthor) wherein it is known for a controller to perform microscope automation wherein sample information includes topography/height information of a currently used sample holder or of a currently used sample so that the apparatus is capable of preventing collisions between the objective and the sample (see at least paragraphs [0003], [0006], [0048]-[0049], [0082]-[0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Fahlbusch to include the teachings of Amthor so that the accessible spatial region is determined based on data about at least one of a topography of a currently used sample holder or a topography of a currently used sample, for the purpose of controlling movement of the optical elements to maintain a safe working distance between sample and/or stage and the objective so that collisions with the objective may be prevented.
Regarding claim 10, Fahlbusch in view of Amthor discloses the limitations of claim 9, and wherein the relative position information comprises data about at least one of a relative position of the objective in a direction parallel or perpendicular to a focus plane of the objective (see at least paragraphs [0036], [0040], [0049], [0053], [0056]-[0057], [0100] of Fahlbusch).
Regarding claim 11, Fahlbusch in view of Amthor discloses the limitations of claim 9, and wherein the relative movement of the objective is controlled by a restriction of the relative movement in at least one of a direction perpendicular or a direction parallel to a focus plane of the objective (see at least paragraphs [0036], [0040], [0049], [0053], [0056]-[0057], [0100] of Fahlbusch).
Regarding claim 12, Fahlbusch in view of Amthor discloses a microscope system, comprising an apparatus according to claim 1 (see at least the abstract and paragraph [0002] of Fahlbusch).
Regarding claim 13, Fahlbusch discloses a method for a microscope system, comprising: receiving region information about an accessible spatial region for an objective of the microscope system (see at least paragraphs [0040], [0049], [0053]-[0060], [0095], [0100]); and
triggering a restriction of a relative movement of the objective based on the information about the accessible spatial region (see at least paragraphs [0040], [0049], [0053]-[0060], [0095], [0100]).
Fahlbusch does not specifically disclose that the region information comprises data about at least one of a topography of a currently used sample holder or a topography of a currently used sample.
However, Amthor is also drawn to an apparatus for a microscope system (see at least figure 2 and the abstract of Amthor) wherein it is known for a controller to perform microscope automation wherein sample information includes topography/height information of a currently used sample holder or of a currently used sample so that the apparatus is capable of preventing collisions between the objective and the sample (see at least paragraphs [0003], [0006], [0048]-[0049], [0082]-[0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Fahlbusch to include the teachings of Amthor so that the region information comprises data about at least one of a topography of a currently used sample holder or a topography of a currently used sample, for the purpose of controlling movement of the optical elements to maintain a safe working distance between sample and/or stage and the objective so that collisions with the objective may be prevented.
Regarding claim 15, Fahlbusch in view of Amthor discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a program code that, when the program code is executed on a processor, a computer, or a programmable hardware component, causes the processor, computer, or programmable hardware component to perform the method of claim 13 (see at least paragraphs [0059]-[0060], [0095] of Fahlbusch).
Regarding claim 14, Fahlbusch discloses a method for a microscope system, comprising
receiving, from the microscope system, relative position information about a relative position of an objective of the microscope system (see at least paragraphs [0040], [0049], [0053]-[0060], [0095], [0100]);
comparing the relative position information with an accessible spatial region of the objective (see at least paragraphs [0040], [0049], [0053]-[0060], [0095], [0100]); and
controlling a relative movement of the objective based on the comparison so that the objective of the microscope system stays within the accessible spatial region (see at least paragraphs [0040], [0049], [0053]-[0060], [0095], [0100]).
Fahlbusch does not specifically disclose that the accessible spatial region is determined based on data about at least one of a topography of a currently used sample holder or a topography of a currently used sample.
However, Amthor is also drawn to an apparatus for a microscope system (see at least figure 2 and the abstract of Amthor) wherein it is known for a controller to perform microscope automation wherein sample information includes topography/height information of a currently used sample holder or of a currently used sample so that the apparatus is capable of preventing collisions between the objective and the sample (see at least paragraphs [0003], [0006], [0048]-[0049], [0082]-[0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Fahlbusch to include the teachings of Amthor so that the accessible spatial region is determined based on data about at least one of a topography of a currently used sample holder or a topography of a currently used sample, for the purpose of controlling movement of the optical elements to maintain a safe working distance between sample and/or stage and the objective so that collisions with the objective may be prevented.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahlbusch et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0116753 A1, of record (hereafter Fahlbusch) in view of Amthor et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0114387 A1 (hereafter Amthor) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farrell et al., U.S. Patent Number 9,215,425 B1, of record (hereafter Farrell).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Fahlbusch does not specifically disclose that the one or more processors are further configured to perform an autofocus routine based on the restriction of the relative movement of the objective; and/or the one or more processors are further configured to restrict an autofocus length of an autofocus routine based on the restriction of the relative movement of the objective.
However, Farrell is also drawn to an apparatus for a microscope system (see at least figure 1, the abstract, and col. 4, lines 37-50 of Farrell) wherein an observation sample surface is observed and a computer is used to perform an automatic focusing operation wherein the computer is programmed to stop actuation of a scanning mechanism when the objective approaches the surface of the sample in order to avoid contact and damage to the objective (see at least col. 2, lines 10-40; and col. 4, line 16 through col. 5, line 3 of Farrell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Fahlbusch in view of Amthor to include the teachings of Farrell so that the one or more processors are further configured to perform an autofocus routine based on the restriction of the relative movement of the objective; and the one or more processors are further configured to restrict an autofocus length of an autofocus routine based on the restriction of the relative movement of the objective, for the purpose of performing an automatic focusing operation wherein the computer is programmed to stop movement of the objective when the objective approaches the surface of the sample in order to avoid contact and damage to the objective and/or sample.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahlbusch et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0116753 A1, of record (hereafter Fahlbusch) in view of Amthor et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0114387 A1 (hereafter Amthor) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weber et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0116695 A1 (hereafter Weber), of record.
Regarding claim 7, Fahlbusch does not specifically disclose that the one or more processors are further configured to trigger a change of the objective of the microscope system to another objective of the microscope system, wherein the accessible spatial region for the objective and the other objective is different.
However, Weber is also drawn to an apparatus for a microscope system (see at least the abstract of Weber) wherein a master controller automatically controls a Z axis drive, raising and lowering an XY table and rotating the objective turret of the microscope, and which may prevent collisions of the objective with the XY table (see at least paragraph [0066] of Weber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Fahlbusch in view of Amthor to include the teachings of Weber so that the one or more processors are further configured to trigger a change of the objective of the microscope system to another objective of the microscope system, wherein the accessible spatial region for the objective and the other objective is different, for the purpose of changing a magnification of the microscope by changing an objective while also allowing movement of the optical elements to maintain a safe working distance between sample and/or stage and the objective so that collisions with the objective may be prevented.
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 DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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 B. Allen can be reached at 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 3/5/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872