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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On claim 3, line 1, status identifier “(Original)” should be – (Currently Amended) – since the claim is amended. Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the light source" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear and confusing as to which light source between the two light sources is referring to. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the driving unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 5, it is not clear and confusing as to how a driving motor in claim 5 is related to a driving motor in claim 1. Actually, it is not clear and confusing as to how the driving motor in claims 1 and 5, the driving unit in claims 3-4 and the driving source in claims 4-5 are related. Is the driving motor in claim 1 the same as or different than the driving motor in claim 5? Clarification is required. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the fluorescent filter set" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear and confusing as to which fluorescent filter set between the two fluorescent filter sets is referring to. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the light source" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear and confusing as to which light source between the two light sources is referring to. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the light source" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear and confusing as to which light source between the two light sources is referring to. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the fluorescent filter set" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear and confusing as to which fluorescent filter set between the two fluorescent filter sets is referring to. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the light source" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear and confusing as to which light source between the two light sources is referring to.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hufnagel et al. (Patent Pub. No. US 2016/0377852 A1) in view of Norris et al. (Patent Pub. No. US 2017/0013186 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hufnagel et al. shows in Fig. 3 a fluorescent filter block assembly for a fluorescence imaging optical system, the fluorescent filter block assembly comprising: one housing (10); one fluorescent filter set; and a light source (40) assembled to the housing to provide lighting, wherein the fluorescent filter set includes three fluorescent components consisting of an excitation filter (38), a dichroic beamsplitter (50), and an emission filter (42), in which the three fluorescent components are sequentially arranged in order of the excitation filter, the dichroic beamsplitter, and the emission filter based on the light source ([0033] – [0034]). Hufnagel et al. does not disclose two fluorescent filter sets and one brightfield channel built into the housing. It should be noted that mere duplicating an element (fluorescent filter set) is ordinary skill in the art. Norris et al. discloses the fluorescent filter block assembly further includes one brightfield channel, in which the brightfield channel is built into the housing ([0006]). Also, mere positioning an element (the brightfield channel) in the specific location (between the two fluorescent filter sets) is in the ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the bright field mode of Norris et al. on the device of Hufnagel et al. for the purpose of rapid image acquisition.
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 SEUNG C SOHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4123. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8 - 5.
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, GEORGIA EPPS can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/SEUNG C SOHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights