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 appl icant regards as his invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation 5 to 120 seconds FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT , and the claim also recites 10 to 60 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. C laim 17 recites the broad recitation .5 to 30 seconds , and the claim also recites 1 to 10 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 -4, 6-9, 11-12, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hegedus WO2014/132094 . Regarding claim 1, Hegedus teaches a method of preparing a microscope slide for imaging a sample on the microscope slide (microscope slide 49) , the method comprising: placing a transparent flowable material on the sample (page 10 last paragraph – transfers covering substance onto slide 49) while the slide is supported with one or more linkages ( arm page 6 paragraph 1 -applicant’s specification states “linkages may include mechanical apparatuses for moving slide 225. For example, linkage 250 may include one or more of a motor, a gear, an actuator, a belt, a conveyor belt, a chain, a threaded member, a bolt, a nut, a pulley, a pull wire, a translation stage, a linear stage, a joint of a robotic arm, a robotic arm, or a gantry ” [0040] of US 2024/0160000 ) coupled to a processor (fig. 8 control computer 18) ; covering the sample with a coverslip (coverslip release – page 11 1 st pargraph ) ; and placing the microscope slide on a microscope stage with the one or more linkages coupled to the slide and the processor (page 11 paragraph 2) . Regarding claim 2, Hegedus teaches t he method of claim 1, wherein the one or more linkages ( fig. 1-6 arm 3) is coupled to a slide engagement structure (feeding tray 17) configured to engage the microscope slide and move the microscope slide to the microscope stage with the one or more linkages, the slide engagement structure comprising one or more of an extension sized to fit under the slide (see feeding tray 17) , a slide support to couple to the slide, a suction source to couple to the slide, an electronically controlled gripper to hold the slide or a mechanical gripper to hold the slide. Regarding claim 3, Hegedus teaches t he method of claim 1, wherein the microscope slide is placed on the microscope stage with a slide engagement structure ( feeding tray 17 ) coupled to the linkage (manipulation arm 3 – see page 9 last paragraph) and the flowable material is placed on the sample while the microscope slide is supported with the slide engagement structure (transfers stain - page 10 first paragraph) . Regarding claim 4, Hegedus teaches t he method of claim 3, wherein the coverslip is placed on the flowable material while the microscope slide is supported with the slide engagement structure (page 10 last paragraph) . Regarding claim 6, Hegedus teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the microscope slide is placed on the microscope stage (digitizing unit 16) at a first location of the microscope stage and a second slide that has been previously placed at a second location of the microscope stage is lifted from the microscope stage and placed (transferred into an incubation drawer page 11 first paragraph) in a cassette (incubation drawer 1) . Regarding claim 7, Hegedus teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the microscope slide is placed on the microscope stage (digitizing unit) at the first location with an extension (feeding tray 17) beneath the microscope slide . Regarding claim 8, Hegedus teaches t he method of claim 7, wherein there is relative lateral movement between the extension, the first slot and the second slot with the extension beneath the microscope slide (see page 11 paragraphs 1-2) . Regarding claim 9, Hegedus teaches t he method of claim 7, wherein the extension is moved laterally from a first position beneath the microscope slide to a second position beneath the second microscope slide prior to lifting the second slide from the microscope stage (see page 11 paragraphs 1 and 2 slide will be moved to/from feeding tray to digitizing unit/incubation drawer) . Regarding claim 11, Hegedus teaches t he method of claim 1, wherein the flowable material is placed on the sample before the coverslip is placed on the flowable material and the flowable material is allowed to spread while the microscope slide is coupled to the linkage (“ensures even spreading” page 10 paragraph 1) . Regarding claim 12, Hegedus teaches t he method of claim 1, wherein the transparent flowable material is allowed to spread on the sample before imaging the sample (“ensures even spreading” page 10 paragraph 1) . Regarding claim 16, Hegedus teaches t he method of claim 1, wherein the coverslip is placed over the sample after placing a final amount of the flowable material on the sample (page 10 last paragraph – page 11 first paragraph) . Regarding claim 18, Hegedus teaches t he method of claim 1, wherein the transparent flowable material is placed on the sample with a channel extending to an opening (fig. 3 pipette tip 30) and optionally wherein the channel extending to the opening comprises one or more of a needle or a nozzle. Regarding claim 19, Hegedus teaches t he method of claim 18, wherein the transparent flowable material is sprayed on the sample (page 10 last paragraph) . Regarding claim 20, Hegedus teaches t he method of claim 18, wherein a gap extends between the sample and the opening ( to place the transparent flowable material on the sample. 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegedus WO 2014/132094 in view of Henderson US 4171241 Regarding claim 5, Hegedus teaches the method of claim 1 but does not each a pair of extensions engages the coverslip from opposite sides to move the coverslip into alignment with the microscope slide while the microscope slide is coupled to the linkage and optionally wherein the pair of extensions aligns the slide with one or more of the slide engagement structure or the microscope stage. However Henderson teaches a pair of extensions (fig. 7 dispensing block 10) engages the coverslip (coverslip 16) from opposite sides to move the coverslip into alignment with the microscope slide while the microscope slide (slide 65) is coupled to the linkage (carrying rod 65) and optionally wherein the pair of extensions aligns the slide with one or more of the slide engagement structure or the microscope stage offering automated coverslipping (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the coverslipping mechanism of Hegedus with that of Henderson as they both perform are considered equivalent methods of automated coverslipping . Claim (s) 10, and 13-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegedus WO 2014/132094. Regarding claim 10, Hegedus teaches the method of claim 7 but does not teach wherein the microscope stage is moved laterally from a first position to a second position prior to lifting the second slide from the microscope stage. However Hegedus does teach, “the time requirements for manipulation steps are not related to the moving unit. Different manipulating steps can be carried out simultaneously regarding several slides 49 while moving an additional slide 49 which, in the case of 41 to 50 sections and several hours of treatment time, may result in considerable time saving. Because of the complex arrangement of slides 49 to be treated, the length of required movements and their respective time demand can also be reduced. Further time-saving can be achieved by the fact that the feeding and removal of slides 49 can also be performed one by one, even by digitizing unit 16 or by means of (a) special unit(s)” (page 11 paragraph 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide microscope stage is moved laterally from a first position to a second position prior to lifting the second slide from the microscope stage to offer enhanced flexibility and throughput. Regarding claim 13, Hegedues teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the flowable material is allowed to spread over the sample for a time within a range but does not specify from about 5 seconds to about 120 seconds and optionally from about 10 seconds to about 60 seconds. However this is considered routine optimization as Hegedus already teaches “A staining for a given slide 49 can be ordered through the control computer 18. After recording preview images of each slide 49, the control software 79 calculates an optimal staining of said slides 49 while taking into consideration different incubation times of different staining protocols 73, the dimensions of each tissue to be stained and other factors.” Therefore, this time range would have been easily considered through “optimal staining” of slides which is already taught by the reference. Regarding claim 14, Hegedus teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the flowable material is allowed to spread over the sample for the time within the range after placing the coverslip on the flowable material coverslip (see page 10 last paragraph to page 11 first paragraph). Regarding claim 15, Hegedus teaches the timing being considered based on different staining protocols (see claim 13 rejection) thus the time within the range comprises a first time before the coverslip is placed on the flowable material and a second time after the coverslip is placed on the flowable material also considered obvious in view of this. Regarding claim 17, Hegedus teaches does not explicitly teach the method of claim 16, wherein the coverslip is placed within about 0.5 seconds to about 30 seconds after placing the final amount on the sample and optionally within about 1 second to about 10 seconds. However this is considered routine optimization as it would be considered part of the optimal staining procedure (reference in claim 13 rejection). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PHU VU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1562 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 11:00 - 7:00 M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Carruth can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /PHU VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871