DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 11/06/2025.
In the filed response, Claims 1-6, 17, and 22-26 have been amended, where Claims 1 and 22 are independent claims. Claims 7-8, 10, 13-14, and 18 being previously canceled.
Accordingly, Claims 1-6, 9, 11-12, 15-17, and 19-26 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-12, filed 11/06/2025, with respect to the rejection of the independent claims 1 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. The amendments change the limitation “thereby illuminating defects on the at least one biochip when a mask material layer is present on the at least one biochip and when a mask material is absent…” to read “thereby illuminating defects on the at least one biochip in an area where a mask material layer is present on the at least one biochip and in an area where a mask material is absent from the at least one biochip…”. Accordingly, the examiner respectfully submits the scope has changed to more clearly show the light is directed to two distinct areas of the biochip for illuminating defects, one being where the mask material layer is present and the other being where the mask material layer is absent. In light of the foregoing, and based on examiner’s current understanding of the claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art Beseki et al. US 2002/0176072 A1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Beseki. Please see examiner’s responses below for details.
2. After carefully considering Applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully submits the following. First, it is agreed that Perov does not teach a “mask material layer” (pg. 10 of remarks) and further, the examiner recognizes there is no direct reference to a ‘biochip’. Perov’s biological microarrays are a substrate, made of glass (i.e. an insulator) for example, where material (biomolecular probes) can be immobilized onto discrete, spatially ordered sites (col. 3 lines 54-56, col. 4 lines 11-29). These discrete sites (i.e. microarray features) can be reasonably construed as discrete reaction zones, which is in contradistinction to the surrounding surface of the substrate. However, for the reasons presented here and in Applicant’s remarks, the work of Perov is no longer considered as a primary reference, although it is relied on for the “ring light” in claim 19.
3. Applicant further asserts “there is no disclosure of a masking material in Fitzgerald” (see pg. 10 of remarks). After re-visiting the prior art, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees, since Fitzgerald clearly describes a coating of a masking material (2) and uncoated discrete reaction zones (3a, 3b, and 3c) on a microarray substrate (1). Please see ¶0009-¶0010 with reference to fig. 1 and figs. 2A-2B, which appears to align with Applicant’s filed specification regarding discrete reaction zones 12 on a biochip that are not covered by mask material layer 13 (e.g. Figs. 2A-2B on pg. 14). Also worth noting is Fitzgerald’s reference to the term “biochip” (e.g. ¶0036). Thus, it is the examiner’s understanding that Fitzgerald discloses a masking material for a microarray substrate which is also shown to be related to a biochip. Applicant further asserts that Fitzgerald’s teachings of the “disclosed screen print does not address biochip surface quality control” (pg. 11 of remarks), however, Fitzgerald does address the biochip along with the presence and absence of a mask material layer as claimed. Thus, the work of Fitzgerald is deemed relevant. However, given Fitzgerald’s teachings do not disclose “biochip surface quality control”, there is no reasonable support for “an illumination source arranged in use to direct illumination on to the face of the biochip sheet, thereby illuminating defects on the at least one biochip in an area where a mask material layer is present on the at least one biochip and in an area where a mask material is absent from the at least one biochip, and allowing the defects to be included in the imaged at least a portion of the imaging region” as required in amended claims 1 and 22. As such, the examiner brings in the work of new prior art Beseki which discloses a method for controlling the quality of microdroplets of a microarray substrate, which is often referred to as a biochip (e.g. ¶0002, ¶0005, ¶0029); hence by Belseki’s teachings, biochip surface quality control can be realized. Beseki further describes a light source for illuminating the surface of the substrate along with an optical detector (please note the setup in fig. 2) that sees very dark microdroplets (construed as discrete reaction zones) on a very bright/white background (absence of microdroplets). Please see the captured image in fig. 3. In other words, the illumination is directed onto a face of said microarray substrate (i.e. biochip) to illuminate all areas, including the 4x6 microdroplets and their surroundings. Thus, the captured images in Belseki can be used to discriminate said microdroplets of the array from contaminations such as dust (¶0028), i.e. the biochip surface quality control can be realized. Although Beseki’s microarray substrate (i.e. biochip) does not ‘explicitly’ refer to a mask material, the examiner respectfully submits that this does find support in Fitzgerald, since Fitzgerald’s microarray substrate comprises a coating of masking material and a plurality of discrete reaction zones, where said zones are uncoated areas on the substrate (abstract). Lastly, Belseki and Fitzgerald only appear to teach a single biochip. To address the claimed “biochip sheet”, the examiner relies on Tweedie’s array of biochips as shown in fig. 11. For these reasons, which are further elaborated on below, the examiner respectfully submits that the combination of Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie reasonably teaches and/or suggests the disclosed features of the aforementioned limitation given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Other noteworthy literature that describe microarrays coated with a masking material include for e.g. Haynes et al. US 2013/0109585 A1 (e.g. ¶0274, ¶0287-¶0290 ). Also please refer to Spero et al. US 2020/0254454 A1.
4. Applicant’s remarks and amendments pertaining to the title of the invention are acknowledged. Also acknowledged are the amendments made to the specification. As such, the objections to the specification are withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s remarks and amendments regarding the claim objections are acknowledged. As such, the claim objections are withdrawn.
6. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
7. In light of the foregoing, Claims 1-6, 9, 11-12, 15-17, and 19-26 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 1-4, 6, 11-12, 15-16, 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beseki et al. US 2002/0176072 A1, in view of Fitzgerald et al. US 2018/0339282 A1, and in further view of Tweedie et al. US 2003/0008385 A1, hereinafter referred to as Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Beseki teaches and/or suggests “A vision system for assessing defects on biochips [Please refer to Beseki’s optical set-up (fig. 2) that enables high-contrast images of dark microdroplets on a bright background to be captured, where dust particles (i.e. defects) can be discriminated from said microdroplets. Hence, quality in biochip production processes can be controlled (e.g. ¶0029)], the vision system comprising: an imaging region in which a biochip sheet including at least one biochip is locatable in use [See fig. 2 with respect to an imaging region of optical detector 12 (e.g. CCD camera – ¶0043) in which the areas of microarray substrate 2 of 4x6 microdroplets (4) can be imaged (fig. 3). Said microarray is a microarray of a biochip (e.g. ¶0036). Regarding a biochip sheet, see Tweedie below]; an imager arranged in use to image at least a portion of the imaging region [See optical detector 12 above], wherein, when the biochip sheet is located in the imaging region [The substrate of the microarray (of a biochip) is located in the imaging region as shown in fig. 2. See element 2 with respect to optical detector 12], the portion includes at least a face of the biochip sheet [Please refer to fig. 2, where a face of the microarray of the biochip is contained in the imaging region of optical detector 12]; and an illumination source arranged in use to direct illumination on to the face of the biochip sheet [See homogeneous, diffuse light source 10 and associated optics for producing parallel light rays 6 (e.g. ¶0040-¶0041) directed to a face of the microarray of the biochip as shown in fig. 2], thereby illuminating defects on the at least one biochip in an area where a mask material layer is present on the at least one biochip and in an area where a mask material is absent from the at least one biochip, and allowing the defects to be included in the imaged portion of the imaging region.” [Although Beseki does not explicitly refer to a mask material being present in an area of said microarray and not present in another area of said microarray, Beseki’s setup does allow for different areas on the face of said microarray to be illuminated for imaging to help discriminate dust particles from microdroplets. Regarding the mask material being present/not present on a microarray of a biochip, please refer to Fitzgerald below] Although Beseki’s set-up (fig. 2) for performing quality control of a microarray of a biochip is deemed relevant, there is no explicit reference to a mask material being present/not present on said microarray. As such, the work of Fitzgerald from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to explicitly teach and/or suggest the masking material used to coat the substrate of the biochip. [Fitzgerald teaches a masking material for coating a microarray (i.e. biochip), where the only areas not coated are the discrete reaction zones (e.g. ¶0034-¶0038), i.e. in one area the mask is present, while in the other area, the mask is not present. Also please see element 2 (masking material) in figs. 1 and 2A-2B. This appears to further align with the filed specification (e.g. pg. 8 lines 21-29 and pg. 14 lines 6-11).] Unlike Beseki’s microarray of a biochip which can be quality inspected for defects using the set-up in fig. 2, Fitzgerald’s teachings are directed to the microarray substrate, the masking material, and the plurality of discrete reaction zones onto which one or more binding agents can be attached (e.g. abstract). In particular, it addresses an improved composition for use in coating said substrate (¶0002). As such, Fitzgerald’s teachings are deemed relevant given the BRI of the claim. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the techniques of Beseki for controlling the quality in biochip production processes (¶0029), to add the teachings of Fitzgerald as above for coating a microarray substrate that allows for improved accuracy of deposition of binding agents (¶0008).
Although Beseki and Fitzgerald appear to disclose a single biochip, extending this to include a plurality of biochips would be within the level of skill in the art. Nonetheless, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the work of Tweedie from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest a “biochip sheet”. [Please see the array of biochips in fig. 11 which is construed as a biochip sheet] Given Tweedie’s biochip deposition system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Beseki and Fitzgerald, both related to a biological microarray (i.e. biochip), to add the teachings of Tweedie as above for providing a quality control process for inspecting an array of biochips to help reduce the possibilities of errors associated with missing/misplaced spots during the deposition process, therefore preventing the chances of having a false diagnosis of a strong positive sample, which would be a very undesirable situation in the diagnosis of diseases (¶0004).
Regarding claim 2, (Currently Amended) Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Beseki further teaches and/or suggest “further comprising an analyzer arranged in use to detect artifacts located on an imaged biochip or at least a portion of the biochip sheet based on an image output from the imager.” [See for e.g. ¶0015 and ¶0028 of Beseki with respect to an analyzer for analyzing images on identified patterns with respect to the presence, the position, or the size of microdroplets deposited on the substrate, which can be discriminated from solid particles (e.g. dust particles) by said pattern. See element 22 in fig. 3]
Regarding claim 3, (Currently Amended) Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Beseki further teaches and/or suggest “wherein the analyzer is arranged in use to detect artifacts by assessing changes in contrast and/or changes in pixel intensity between adjacent pixels in an image.” [See high-contrast image 20 of the microarray in fig. 3 produced by the set-up of fig. 2. Such contrast helps to assess the microdroplets and to discriminate them from solid particles such as the one shown in fig. 3 (¶0046-¶0048)]
Regarding claim 4, (Currently Amended) Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Beseki and Fitzgerald do not appear to address the features of claim 4. Tweedie on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor does appear to teach and/or suggest the following features given the BRI of the limitations, i.e. “wherein the analyzer [See image processing system 1A in fig. 1A] is further arranged in use to apply a region of interest to each imaged biochip or each at least a portion of the biochip sheet [Camera 1 appears to capture images of each biochip in the array of biochips as per fig. 1A, which in turn can be analyzed by said image processing system (¶0033). Regarding a region of interest, see ¶0037 with reference to fig. 5] and to detect artifacts within the region of interest.” [Once a region of interest has been identified, features of each spot within said region can be calculated (e.g. area, contrast, etc.) and determined whether they are acceptable. Here, an artifact, given its BRI, can correspond to features not deemed acceptable] The motivation for combining Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, (Currently Amended) Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although Beseki does not explicitly teach “wherein the analyzer is further arranged to output results of the artifact detection for each imaged biochip or each at least a portion of the biochip sheet.” [With Beseki’s set-up (fig. 2), along with the disclosed image processing means (¶0048) for discriminating the microdroplets from solid particles (e.g. dust), being able to output any processing results (e.g. a display or storage) would be within the level of skill in the art. For e.g., Tweedie shows examples of screen displays in figs. 9a-9b. Tweedie also shows various outputs in ¶0029]
Regarding claim 11, (Previously Presented) Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Beseki and Fitzgerald do not address the features of claim 11. Tweedie on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the imager [See camera 1 in figs. 1A and 1B] is arranged in use to image the portion by imaging individual sections of the portion sequentially [Per the set-up in the figures above, portions of the array of biochips can be imaged, where it appears the camera and array can move in the x and y directions, respectively, to cover said array] such that when the biochip sheet includes a plurality of biochips [See array of biochips in fig. 11], the imager images faces of a subset of the plurality of biochips when imaging each individual section of the portion.” [See figs. 1A-1B and corresponding text for support] The motivation for combining Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 12, (Previously Presented) Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Beseki and Fitzgerald do not address the features of claim 12. Tweedie on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the imager [See camera 1 in figs. 1A and 1B] is moveable in use.” [Said camera can move as per fig. 1A. It appears the motion is in both the x and z directions] The motivation for combining Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 15, Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 12, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Beseki and Fitzgerald however do not appear to address the features of claim 15. Tweedie on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the position of the imager is adjustable by a user [Although the motion of camera 1 (e.g. fig. 1A) appears to be automated, the presence of a user/operator suggests the ability to control the operations of the biochip deposition system, which includes providing the machine instructions. Manual positioning of a camera or any device would be within the level of skill in the art. For e.g., please see Takai US 5,906,158 (PTO 892)] and the imager being arranged in use to provide an image to the user [See monitor 1C in ¶0030 for viewing captured data. See for e.g. the images shown in figs. 2-8], the image showing the content of the field of view of the imager [Please refer to the images in the above figures] and a reticule in a fixed position relative to the imager thereby allowing the user to determine the position of the imager relative to the content in the field of view of the imager.” [The specification (e.g. pg. 23 lines 13-16 and pg. 24 lines 26-31) appears to define a ‘reticle’ as a marker for alignment purposes. As such, Tweedie discloses markings (e.g. number, character sequence, etc.) for identifying the substrate to be examined for spot data (e.g. ¶0033-¶0034) in the array of biochips (e.g. fig. 11)] The motivation for combining Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 16, (Previously Presented) Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 12, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Beseki and Fitzgerald do not address the features of claim 16. Tweedie on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein when imaging the biochips [See figs. 1A-1B], the imager [Refer to camera 1] is arranged in use to travel along a movement path [A movement path can be associated with the movement of camera 1 in the x and z directions], travel along the movement path causing the imager field of view to be moved to each biochip to be imaged.” [As the camera is moved, its field of view enables the biochips of the array to be imaged] The motivation for combining Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 20, Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Beseki and Fitzgerald however do not appear to address the features of claim 20. Tweedie on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “further comprising a support arranged in use to support a platen for a biochip sheet, the platen being locatable to position the biochip sheet in the imaging region.” [Since the specification appears to describe a platen and/or a rack as a support for mounting the biochips (e.g. pg. 26 lines 1-12), please refer to Tweedie’s substrate bed 4 (¶0030-¶0031) for holding all biochips on all substrates. Proper positioning is attained via the markings discussed in ¶0034-¶0035. Also please refer to Tweedie’s plates in for e.g. ¶0034 which can also be construed as a support] The motivation for combining Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 21, Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 20, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Beseki and Fitzgerald however do not appear to address the features of claim 21. Tweedie on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the support is further arranged in use to support a rack for biochip sheets, the rack also being locatable to position at least a biochip sheet held at a top of the rack in the imaging region. [Same citations as claim 20 above, since the filed specification seems to show that both the platen and the rack provide analogous functionality for supporting the biochip] The motivation for combining Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 6.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 16.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beseki, in view of Fitzgerald, in further view of Tweedie, and in further view of Grill et al. et al. US 2003/0157581 A1, hereinafter referred to as Grill.
Regarding claim 9, (Currently Amended) Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie do not address the features of claim 9. Grill on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the imager is arranged in use to provide a spatial resolution of between about 10 microns (μm) and about 1 μm [Please refer to ¶0033 where a spatial resolving power of 20 microns or better can be achieved. Although Grill does not explicitly recite the claimed range, the phrase “or better” would be understood by a skilled person in the art to mean < 20 microns which overlaps the claimed range] and the spatial resolution is arranged in use to be provided by one or more of the relative position of the imager and biochip sheet or imaging region [Given the limitation “by one or more”, only one of the subsequent limitations need to be addressed. For e.g., ¶0033 shows said spatial resolving power is determined by the distance of the biochip from the area sensor. Also please see ¶0062 regarding said distance], the imager field of view [It is within the level of skill in the art that CCD sensors (e.g. ¶0072) have a field of view], and size of a sensor of the imager.” [¶0033 further shows said spatial resolving power is determined by the size of the pixels of the area sensor] Given the work of Grill pertains to evaluating biochips (e.g. ¶0001), Grill’s teachings are deemed relevant given the BRI of the claim. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the techniques of Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie to add the teachings of Grill as above to provide an image-generating photoelectric area sensor that can be arranged at very short distances from the surface of a biochip to detect emitted radiation from substances immobilized on an essentially planar surface of said biochip with spatial resolution and high sensitivity (¶0021).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beseki, in view of Fitzgerald, in further view of Tweedie, and in further view of Perov et al. US 7,598,037 B2, hereinafter referred to as Perov.
Regarding claim 19, (Previously Presented) Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie do not address the features of claim 19. Perov on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the illumination source is a ring light located around an aperture though which the imager is able to obtain images.” [See ring illuminator 106 (fig. 1) in Perov] In light of Perov’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the techniques of Beseki, Fitzgerald, and Tweedie to add the teachings of Perov as above that implement methods for non-destructive quality control of substrates for biological microarrays which can detect missing, deformed, or misplaced array elements as well as dust particles or other possible contaminations (abstract and col. 5 lines 1-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 5, 17, and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
5. (Currently Amended) The vision system according to claim 4, wherein each biochip of the biochip sheet includes a substrate comprising a mask material layer and a plurality of discrete reaction zones, each zone being an area of the substrate where the mask material is absent, the region of interest applied by the analyzer overlapping with at least a part of the mask material layer.
17. (Currently Amended) The vision system according to claim 16, wherein the vision system is arranged in use to calculate the movement path based on a start position and an end position and a value indicative of a number of biochips to be imaged based on the biochips being arranged in an array pattern.
26. (Currently Amended) The vision method according to claim 25 further comprising calculating the movement path based on a start position, end position and a value indicative of a number of biochips to be analyzed based on the biochips to be imaged being arranged in an array pattern.
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 RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 pm.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486