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 .
Amendment filed on 10/31/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12, 16 and 19-21 are pending. Claims 13-15 and 17-18 have been cancelled without prejudice.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9, 10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
Line 17 recites “under the experiment conditions”, which is lack of antecedent basis. Examiner believes that it should be rewritten as “under the two experiment conditions” for consistency throughout the whole claim. If the Applicant agrees with Examiner’s suggestion, please modify “under the experiment conditions” recited in line 22 of Claim 17.
Claim 4:
Line 3 recites “arranging the values of the first experiment condition” (emphasis added), which should be rewritten as “arranging values of the first experiment condition”.
Line 5 recites “arranging the values of the second experiment condition” (emphasis added), which should be rewritten as “arranging values of the second experiment condition”.
Claim 7:
Lines 3-4 recites “under the experiment conditions”, which should be rewritten as “under the two experiment conditions”.
Claim 7 recites “the cell” in the last line should be rewritten as “the selected cell”.
Claim 9:
Line 4 recites “the cell”, which should be rewritten as “the selected cell”.
Claims 2-9 further depends claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-9 are objected under the same rationale.
Claim 10 contains similar issues as pointed out in claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is objected under the same rationale.
Claim 19
Line 4 recites “under the experiment conditions”, which should be rewritten as “under the experiment condition” for consistency with claim 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekivetz et al., US 2020/0371001, in view of Meyer et al., US 2019/0240918 provided by IDs filed on 12/14/2023, and further in view of Miller, US 9459776.
As independent claim 10, Lekivetz discloses an experiment support system, comprising:
an experiment support apparatus comprising:
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions thereon (Lekivetz, [0009], [0100]); and
at least one processor configured to, under control of the instructions, execute operations comprising (Lekivetz, [0009], [0100]):
controlling a display device to display a condition table that indicates an experiment condition for measurement, in response to input of the experiment conditions (Lekivetz, fig. 15; [0232]; generating a design with experiment condition for measurement in a table based on user inputs of factor and constraints);
controlling the display device to display at least one of (1) a measurement result based on measurement data and (ii) an analysis result of the measurement data, in a cell of the condition table, in response to an input of the measurement data (Lekivetz, [0111]- [0112], [0119]; sensors for measuring/collecting data; [0119], [(0238]-[0239]; displaying result based on measurement data in a cell of the table).
However, Lekivetz does not teach an optical microscope configured to measure a specimen, the optical microscope having an experiment support function, two experiment conditions for measurement, the two experiment conditions including a first experiment condition and a second experiment condition of a type different from a type of the first experiment condition, one of the two experiment conditions being arranged vertically in the condition table, and the other of the two experiment conditions being arranged horizontally in the condition table; and controlling the display device to display at least one of (i) a measurement result of the measurement of the specimen based on the measurement data, and (ii) an analysis result of the measurement data, to the selected cell of the condition table, in response to an obtaining the measurement data.
Meyer discloses an optical microscope configured to measure a specimen, the optical microscope having an experiment support function (Meyer, [0010], table 2 and Figure 2 show scanning Electronic Microscope (SEM) images of the aromatic thermosetting copolyesters (ATSP) coated A1 specimens prepared for interchain transesterifications (ITR) tests). Meyer teaches two experiment conditions for measurement, in response to input of the two experiment conditions, the two experiment conditions including a first experiment condition and a second experiment condition of a type different from a type of the first experiment condition, one of the two experiment conditions being arranged vertically in the condition table, and the other of the two experiment conditions being arranged horizontally in the condition table (Meyer, table 4, [0047]; two experiment conditions in vertically and horizontally directions); and controlling the display device to display at least one of (i) a measurement result of the measurement of the specimen based on the measurement data, and (ii) an analysis result of the measurement data, to the selected cell of the condition table, in response to an obtaining the measurement data (Meyer, table 4, [0009 ]-[0012], [0047]; [0008]-[00 10], [0040]; displaying measurement data for specimens).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective fling date of the invention, to have combined Meyer's teaching into Lekivetz’s teaching to include an optical microscope configured to measure a specimen, the optical microscope having an experiment support function, two experiment conditions for measurement, the two experiment conditions including a first experiment condition and a second experiment condition of a type different from a type of the first experiment condition, one of the two experiment conditions being arranged vertically in the condition table, and the other of the two experiment conditions being arranged horizontally in the condition table; and controlling the display device to display at least one of (i) a measurement result of the measurement of the specimen based on the measurement data, and (ii) an analysis result of the measurement data, to the selected cell of the condition table, in response to an obtaining the measurement data, since the combination would have facilitated the designing/presenting conditions in different layouts including intersect or not intersect each other.
Lekivetz and Meyer, however, do not disclose receiving, from a user, input of (i) a selection instruction selecting a specific cell of the condition table, and (ii) a start instruction instructing a start of measurement of the specimen under the experiment conditions corresponding to the selected cell; controlling to perform the measurement of the specimen, in response to receiving the start instruction; and obtaining measurement data generated by performing the measurement of the specimen under the experiment conditions corresponding to the selected cell;
Miller teaches receiving, from a user, input of (i) a selection instruction selecting a specific cell of the condition table, and (ii) a start instruction instructing a start of measurement of the specimen under the experiment conditions corresponding to the selected cell; controlling to perform the measurement of the specimen, in response to receiving the start instruction; and obtaining measurement data generated by performing the measurement of the specimen under the experiment conditions corresponding to the selected cell (Miller, fig.5; col.3, lines 9-65; col.4, lines 24-55: user selects one of subjects and one of pre-defined observations resulting an output file of observation data with time stamp is produced for analyzing experimental results).
It would have been obvious io a person of ordinary skill, before the effective tilling date of the invention, to have combined Miller with Lekivetz and Meyer’s teachings to include receiving, from a user, input of (i) a selection instruction selecting a specific cell of the condition table, and (ii) a start instruction instructing a start of measurement of the specimen under the experiment conditions corresponding to the selected cell; controlling to perform the measurement of the specimen, in response to receiving the start instruction; and obtaining measurement data generated by performing the measurement of the specimen under the experiment conditions corresponding to the selected cell, since the combination would have facilitated the user to measure a specimen data particular time via graphical user interface as Miller disclosed.
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on claim 10, Meyer teaches wherein the optical microscope obtains image data on the specimen. (Meyer, [0010], table 2; scanning microscope).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined Meyer’s teaching into Lekivetz’s teaching to include a optical microscope obtaining image data on the specimen, since the combination would have facilitated user to testing different types of data as Meyer disclosed in tables 2, 3, and 4.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekivetz et al., Meyer and Miller as applied to claims 10 and 11 above, and further in view of Nakanishi et al. (Nakanishi), US 2020/0123377 provided by IDs filed on 12/14/2023.
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on claim 10, Nakanishi teaches wherein the optical microscope comprise a laser scanning microscope (Nakanishi, [0169]: a laser scanning microscope).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing data of the invention, to have combined Nakanishi’s teaching into Lekivetz, Meyer and Miller’s teaching to include a laser scanning microscope, since the combination would have obtained image rapidly/accurately for analyzing/testing.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekivetz et al., US 2020/0371001, in view of Meyer et al., US 2019/0240918 provided by IDs filed on 12/14/2023, in view of Miller, US 9459776, and Kohashi et al. (Kohashi), US 2020/0402762 provided by IDs filed on 12/14/2023, and further in view of Felsing et al, (Felsing), US 2019/0192062 provided by IDs filed on 12/14/2023.
Regarding claim 20, Lekivetz teaches an experiment support method, the method comprising:
controlling a display device to display a condition table that indicates an experiment condition for measurement, in response to input of the experiment condition (Lekivetz, Figure 15, [0232]: generating a design with experiment condition for measurement in a table based on user inputs of factor and constraints);
However, Lekivetz does not teach an optical microscope configured to measure a specimen, the optical microscope having an experiment support function.
Meyer discloses an optical microscope configured to measure a specimen, the optical microscope having an experiment support function (Meyer, [0010], table 2 and Figure 2 show scanning Electronic Microscope (SEM) images of the aromatic thermosetting copolyesters (ATSP) coated A1 specimens prepared for interchain transesterifications (ITR) tests).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing data of the invention, to have combined the teaching of Meyer into Lekivetz’s teaching to include an optical microscope configured to measure a specimen, the optical microscope having an experiment support function, since the combination would have facilitated the designing/presenting conditions in different layouts including intersect or not intersect each other.
Lekivetz and Meyer, however, do not disclose receiving, from a user, input of (i) a selection instruction selecting a specific cell of the condition table, and (ii) a start instruction instructing a start of measurement of the specimen under the experiment condition corresponding to the selected cell; controlling to perform the measurement of the specimen, in response to receiving the start instruction; obtaining measurement data generated by performing the measurement of the specimen under the experiment condition corresponding to the selected cell; controlling the display device to display at least one of (i) a measurement result of the measurement of the specimen based on the measurement data, and (ii) an analysis result of the measurement data, in the selected cell of the condition table, in response to obtaining the measurement data.
Miller teaches receiving, from a user, input of (i) a selection instruction selecting a specific cell of the condition table, and (ii) a start instruction instructing a start of measurement of the specimen under the experiment condition corresponding to the selected cell; controlling to perform the measurement of the specimen, in response to receiving the start instruction; obtaining measurement data generated by performing the measurement of the specimen under the experiment condition corresponding to the selected cell; controlling the display device to display at least one of (i) a measurement result of the measurement of the specimen based on the measurement data, and (ii) an analysis result of the measurement data, in the selected cell of the condition table, in response to obtaining the measurement data (Miller, Figure 5, col. 3, lines 9-65; col. 4, lines 24-55: user selects one of subjects and one of pre-defined observations resulting an output file of observation data with time stamp is produced for analyzing experimental results).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined Miller with Lekivetz and Meyer’s teaching to include receiving, from a user, input of (i) a selection instruction selecting a specific cell of the condition table, and (ii) a start instruction instructing a start of measurement of the specimen under the experiment condition corresponding to the selected cell; controlling to perform the measurement of the specimen, in response to receiving the start instruction; obtaining measurement data generated by performing the measurement of the specimen under the experiment condition corresponding to the selected cell; controlling the display device to display at least one of (i) a measurement result of the measurement of the specimen based on the measurement data, and (ii) an analysis result of the measurement data, in the selected cell of the condition table, in response to obtaining the measurement data, since the combination would have facilitated the user to measure a specimen at a particular time via graphical user interface as Miller disclosed.
Lekivetz, Meyer and Miller, however, do not disclose analyzing, using at least one designated analysis method, the measurement data obtained using the optical microscope under the experiment conditions, and generating analysis data indicating the analysis result of the measurement data.
Kohashi discloses analyzing, using at least one designated analysis method, the measurement data obtained using the optical microscope under the experiment conditions, and generating analysis data indicating the analysis result of the measurement data (Kohashi, Figure 3, item 350 and [0062]: data analysis menu with different analysis methods for user selects an analysis method to perform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined Kohashi with Lekivetz, Meyer and Miller’s teaching to include analyzing, using at least one designated analysis method, the measurement data obtained using the optical microscope under the experiment conditions, and generating analysis data indicating the analysis result of the measurement data, since the combination would have facilitated the user to analyze data/image using different analysis methods as Kohashi disclosed.
Felsing teaches color-coding at least one cell in the condition table by assigning one of at least three different colors to each of the at least one cell according to respective values of the analysis data on which the analysis result corresponding thereto is based (Felsing, [0049]: pass and fail result in green and red).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined Felsing with Lekivetz, Meyer, Miller and Kohashi’s teaching to include color-coding based on the analysis data, one or more cells in the condition table where the analysis result is displayed, since the combination would have facilitated user to quickly recognize testing results based on a glance to the colors.
Claim 21 is a medium claim that contains similar limitations of claim 20. Therefore, claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is allowed as previously indicated.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37CFR 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 extension fee 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 CHAU T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4092. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar Paula, can be reached at telephone number 5712724128. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHAU T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145