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
Claims 1-18, received 3/20/2024, are pending for examination.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species IA1 and IB2 in the reply filed on 5/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching all of the claims would not impose a serious burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive and is respectfully traversed.
The inventions require a different field of search which includes searching different classes/subclasses and/or employing different search queries. For example, if election were made to Group II then specific search queries would need to be employed to search for specifics of the proposed focus, such as a look-up table, or a machine learning method. Additionally, the prior art applicable to one elected Group/Species may not be applicable to another Group/Species. Therefore, it is shown that if restriction were not made between the patentably independent or distinct groups then there would be a serious burden placed on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-7, 10, 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to at least one nonelected Group/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/27/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 6/11/2024 was considered.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 12, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0103223 A1 (hereafter Park) in view of Shurcliff, U.S. Patent Number 2,968,994 (hereafter Shurcliff).
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 17, Park discloses a computer-implemented method for manual focus adjustment (see at least the abstract, paras. [0096]-[0103], [0152]-[0156]), the method comprising:
obtaining information about a manually adjusted focus relative to a subject (see at least paras. [0014], [0042]-[0046], [0065]-[0067]);
determining/obtaining information about a proposed focus for the subject (see at least para. [0021], [0049]-[0053], [0056]);
determining a difference between the adjusted focus and the proposed focus (see at least paras. [0065]-[0070]); and
providing/assigning information about a signal to a user based on the determined difference (see at least paras. [0065]-[0070], [0101]-[0111]).
Park does not specifically disclose that the manual focus adjustment is performed with respect to a sample in a microscope.
However, Shurcliff is related to Park since Shurcliff is also drawn to a focusing device which has both automatic and manual modes (see at least col. 1, lines 14-18; col. 7, line 37 through col. 8, line 23 of Shurcliff), wherein the manual focus adjustment is performed with respect to a sample in a microscope (see at least col. 1, lines 14-18; col. 7, line 37 through col. 8, line 23 of Shurcliff).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer implemented method of Park to include the teachings of Shurcliff so that the manual focus adjustment is performed with respect to a sample in a microscope apparatus, for the purpose of allowing focusing in a microscope apparatus to be performed both automatically and manually depending on the needs of a particular imaging application, and/or so that an autofocusing system may be calibrated by first finding an in-focus position manually.
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Shurcliff discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the information about the signal is updated continuously (see at least figure 10, paras. [0113]-[0117], as well as figures 7, 16 and 17 of Park).
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Shurcliff discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the information about the signal comprises information about at least one of a visual signal, an auditive signal, or a haptic signal (see at least figure 10, as well as para. [0121] of Park).
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Shurcliff discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the difference comprises at least one of a direction or a magnitude (see at least figures 9-11 of Park).
Regarding claim 12, Park in view of Shurcliff discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further comprising obtaining information to activate or to deactivate the signal (see at least figure 10, paras. [0113]-[0117], as well as figures 7, 16 and 17 of Park).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0103223 A1 (hereafter Park) in view of Shurcliff, U.S. Patent Number 2,968,994 (hereafter Shurcliff) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogihara et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0105174 A1 (hereafter Ogihara).
Regarding claim 11, Park in view of Shurcliff discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Park further discloses that the information about the signal is related to a visual arrow for a screen (see at least figures 9-11 and para. [0107] of Park).
Park does not specifically disclose that the screen is attached to or being part of the microscope, or for an eyepiece of the microscope.
However, Ogihara is related to Park and Shurcliff since Ogihara is drawn to a microscope system which includes a focus adjustment device (see at least the abstract of Ogihara), and further discloses a microscope configured to provide an interface to a computer operating to control the microscope (see at least figure 1 of Ogihara wherein microscope 10 interfaces with a control computer 50 through signal lines, para. [0016], or figure 4 of Ogihara wherein the microscope and control computer are both housed in housing 40, para. [0066]), and wherein a screen is attached to a part of the microscope (see at least figure 1 of Ogihara wherein microscope 10 interfaces with a control computer 50 through signal lines which also interface with display 60, para. [0016], or figure 4 of Ogihara wherein the microscope and control computer are both housed in housing 40 which interfaces with display 60 through signal lines, paras. [0065]-[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer implemented method of Park in view of Shurcliff to include the teachings of Ogihara so that a screen is attached to or part of a microscope, or an eyepiece of the microscope, for the purpose of allowing focusing operations and sample images of a microscope to be displayed.
Regarding claim 18, Park in view of Shurcliff does not specifically disclose that the microscope is configured to provide an interface to a computer operating a method according to claim 1.
However, Ogihara is related to Park and Shurcliff since Ogihara is drawn to a microscope system which includes a focus adjustment device (see at least the abstract of Ogihara), and further discloses a microscope configured to provide an interface to a computer operating to control the microscope (see at least figure 1 of Ogihara wherein microscope 10 interfaces with a control computer 50 through signal lines, para. [0016], or figure 4 of Ogihara wherein the microscope and control computer are both housed in housing 40, para. [0066]), and wherein a screen is attached to a part of the microscope (see at least figure 1 of Ogihara wherein microscope 10 interfaces with a control computer 50 through signal lines which also interface with display 60, para. [0016], or figure 4 of Ogihara wherein the microscope and control computer are both housed in housing 40 which interfaces with display 60 through signal lines, paras. [0065]-[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer implemented method of Park in view of Shurcliff to include the teachings of Ogihara so that the microscope is configured to provide an interface to a computer, for the purpose of using a well-known means for controlling the operations of a microscope.
Other Related Art
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar optical elements to what is claimed and/or disclosed in the instant application:
Fillbrandt et al., US 2013/0235254 A1, discloses a device/method for obtaining information about a manual focus, determining a difference between an adjusted focus and a proposed focus, and providing an information signal toa user based on the determined difference (abstract, figs. 1-3D, paras. [0019]-[0028]).
Conclusion
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 7/17/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights