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 .
Response to Amendment
The present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on 09/10/2026. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the drawings and the claims. There was not any change being made to the abstract and the specification.
a) Regarding the drawings, applicant has submitted a set of six replacement sheets contained figures 1a-1b, 3, 4a-4b, 5a-5b and 6; and
Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims -2, 4, 6-7 and 11.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the drawings and the claims as provided in the amendment of 09/10/2026, and applicant's arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 6-11, have been fully considered and resulted in the following conclusions.
a) Regarding the claims, because applicant has not added/canceled any claim into/from the application thus the pending claims are still claims 11 in which claims 1-7 and 11 are examined in the present office action, and claims 8-10 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Inventions.
Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 8-10 will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
b) Regarding the objections to the drawings set forth in the office action of 06/12/2026, the amendments to the drawings as provided in the amendment of 09/10/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 6-7, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections to the drawings set forth in the mentioned office action.
c) Regarding the rejections of claims 2, 4, and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the office action of 06/12/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 09/10/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 7-8, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 2, 4, and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the mentioned office action.
d) Regarding the rejection of claims 1-7 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chan (US Patent No. 10,983,325) set forth in the office action of 06/12/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 09/10/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 7-8, have been fully considered but not persuasive. Thus, the rejection of claims 1-7 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chan (US Patent No. 10,983,325) set forth in the mentioned office action.
Applicant’s arguments that the art of Chan does not disclose the feature that the objective is moved along an X or Y direction relative to the vessel stage while the vessel stage is in a fixed position, see amendment in pages 8-10. The examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant’s opinion and respectfully invited the applicant to review the art of Chan, in particular, in column 9, lines 50-67 and fig. 8 in which it disclose that the objective (86) is able to move along an X or Y axis relative to the stage (132) supporting a sample holder (134) which stage is in a fixed position. Applicant argue that the so-called “optical axis” referred in the column 9, lines 50-67 is “the central axis of a light source”, see amendment in page 9, the last full paragraph. The examiner respectfully disagree with applicant’s viewpoint. Applicant should note that a change in optical axis of a light source will not provide a different field of view when the sample holder is in a fixed position.
Applicant should note that the drive subsystem (140) is connected and controlled the operation of either the stage (132) and/or the objective (86) as shown in fig. 8 and described in column 9, lines 50-67, see the language thereof “A drive mechanism of the drive subsystem also or alternatively may move the stage or the optical axis relative to one another in two dimensions in a horizonal plane and/or in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis at the specimen plane”. Applicant should note that the drive subsystem is not connected and thus not controlled the light sources (92,94, 96, …) as shown in figure 8. Further, as mentioned in column 9, lines 5-67, the movement of either the stage or the objective results in a change/variation of an area of the sample to image or to place a different sample of the sample holder in the field of view, see column 9 on lines 59-67. Thus, as disclosed by Chan in column 9, lines 50-67 then the objective is driven by the drive subsystem in a horizon plane, i.e., along an X or Y axis relative to the stage (132) while the stage is in a fixed position.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the art of Chan does not disclose the feature of claim 6, the examiner respectfully disagree with applicant’s viewpoint. Applicant is respectfully invited to review claim 6 with the claimed language as being provided/recited. In particular, the feature “a position inside a well of the vessel” (claim 6 on line 4) could be understood as --any position inside a vessel which has only a (one) well--. In that aspect then the feature thereof “there are … light sources” (claim 6 on lines 1-4) is read from the art of Chan.
Drawings
The six replacement sheets contained figures 1a-1b, 3, 4a-4b, 5a-5b and 6 were received on 09/10/2026.
As a result of the changes to the drawings, the application now contains a total of eight sheets of figures 1a-1b, 2-3, 4a-4b, 5a-5b, 6 and 7a-7b which includes two sheets of figures 2 and 7a-7b as filed on 06/11/2024, and six replacement sheets contained figures 1a-1b, 3, 4a-4b, 5a-5b and 6 as filed on 09/10/2026. These mentioned total of eight sheets of figures 1a-1b, 2-3, 4a-4b, 5a-5b, 6 and 7a-7b are now approved by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
a) Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
a1) the feature thereof “the plurality of brightfield light sources in a top view” (lines 2-3) lacks a proper antecedent basis. Applicant should note that while its base claim recites a plurality of brightfield light sources, see claim 1 on line 3; however, the claim 1 does not provide a proper antecedent basis for the so-called “the plurality of brightfield light sources in a top view” as recited in the claim on lines 2-3.
a2) what does applicant mean by “the plurality of brightfield light sources in a top view”? What “a top view” does applicant imply here?
b) Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by the feature thereof “a light source closest to the objective lens in a top view”. What “a top view” does applicant imply here
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. Claims 1-7 and 11, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chan (US Patent No. 10,983,325, of record).
Chan discloses a trans-illumination imaging system.
a) Regarding present claim 1, the system as described in columns 6-11 and shown in figs. 8 and 12 comprises the following features:
a1) an objective lens (86);
a2) a light source array unit (92) having a plurality of brightfield light sources (94, 96, 98);
a3) a vessel stage (132) supporting a plurality of wells (54) which vessel stage is positioned between the objective lens and the light source array unit; and
a4) at least one processor (142) wherein the at least one processor is operated to select and turn ON a first brightfield light source (96) among the plurality of light sources (94, 96, 98) corresponding to a position of the objective lens (86) and turn OFF the brightfield light sources (94, 98) other than the first brightfield light source (96), see columns 7-8 and 10-11 and fig. 12; and
a5) the drive mechanism of the drive subsystem (140) alternative move the stage or the objective relative to one another, see column 9 on lines 50-67. That teaching provide in the mentioned column mean that the objective is able to move along an X or Y axis by the operation of the drive mechanism relative to the stage when the stage is in a fixed position.
b) Regarding present claim 2, the at least one processor is configured to acquire at least an image of specimen(s) located inside the well(s), see column 7.
c) Regarding present claims 3-4, the plurality of light sources (94, 96, 98) are arranged in a rectangular lattice shape, see column 8 (lines 61-64).
d) Regarding present claims 5-7, the light source (96) which is selected by the at least one processor is positioned closest to the objective lens (86), see figs. 4-8 and 12.
e) Regarding present claim 11, the method steps are implicitly met by the structure of the imaging device as described in columns 6-11, see also columns 9-11 and fig. 11.
Conclusion
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
