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 .
This action is in response to Amendments and Remarks filed on 02/23/2026
Claims 1 and 11 are independent
Claim 10 has been cancelled
Claims 1-9 and 11-18 are pending
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant's amendments and remarks filed on 02/23/2026. They have been fully considered and are persuasive in the part. Claim amendments and Remarks are sufficient to over come some of the rejections and objections and those rejections and objections have been withdrawn. However, with respect to the rejection based on prior art, the amendments are not sufficient to overcome the rejection, nor are Applicant's arguments persuasive.
On page 9 of the Remarks document, Applicant alleges that Ja does not illuminate the sample with multiple spot arrays and on the next page alleges that Condello also fails to teach these features. Applicant fails to clearly point out or explain how the claims avoid the cited reference. Examiner therefore, respectfully disagrees. Examiner would like to reiterate that Ja clearly discloses in ¶0024 that in the illumination system and its light source directs incident light to a sample or specimen. He also discloses that the microscope may be a bright field imaging microscope where illumination of the sample is provided from below the sample. Condello also teaches that spots of equal intensity of laser lights for focusing beams are coupled to the system via beam splitter as shown in Fig 2A. In Fig 4 and in ¶0084, Condello teaches about beam spots 34, 36 for focus tracking.
In view of the above arguments, Examiner would like to maintain the rejections as detailed in the following action.
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 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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ja (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0390733 A1) in view of Condello et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0259760 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ja discloses an auto-focus system (Fig 1 – autofocus system 100), comprising:
an illumination path that is configured to illuminate a front surface of a sample with illumination beams that form multiple spot arrays on a front surface of the sample that comprises an upstream set of spot arrays formed on a first side of an imaging area, and a downstream set of spot arrays formed on another side of the imaging area (In Fig 1, Ja discloses the light source 103 – where the illumination system directs the light on to a sample of specimen. In ¶0025, Ja also discloses providing illumination from below as well which could be interpreted as downstream; Also in ¶0029, Ja discloses that generation of reflected interrogation light beam may occur in one more interfaces (interface 210 and 211 of sample 110) of the sample 110; Also see Fig 9, ¶0051; ¶0060-¶0064 );
a sensor (Fig 1- auto-focus sensor 102 which may house a variety of optical components);
a controller (Fig 1- controller 116); and
wherein the sensor is configured to generate detection signals that represent the optically processed beams (In ¶0030, Ja discloses that the digital signal generated by the detector 114 may be sent to the controller 116); and
wherein the controller is configured to determine a focus state of an evaluation beam that impinges on imaging area (In ¶0030, Ja discloses that the controller 16 receives the digital signal from the detector 114 and evaluates the microscope focus based on the image generated based on the digital signal).
However, Ja fails to clearly disclose spot arrays and a collection path that comprises an entrance pupil and is configured to collect collected beams that are emitted from the sample, and image the entrance pupil
Instead in a similar endeavor, Condello discloses an illumination path (Beams from light source 160) that is configured to illuminate a sample (In Fig 1 and in ¶063, Condello teaches about “subject samples” that are located on sample container 110) with illumination beams that form multiple spot arrays (Figs 19-22; In ¶0061, he discloses focus tracking beam spots) on the sample that comprises an upstream set of spot arrays formed on a first side of an imaging area, and a downstream set of spot arrays formed on another side of the imaging area (In ¶0063, he further teaches that the sample fluoresces and the resultant light collected by the objective lens 142 and dire ted to a photodetector 140 to detect the florescence);
a collection path that comprises an entrance pupil (In ¶0076, Condello teaches the used of prism configured such that the beams converge at the pupil of the objective lens 142 so that the beans at the same are normal) and is configured to collected beams that are emitted from the sample, and image the entrance pupil (In Fig 2A and in ¶0080, Condello teaches that collimated beams are delivered to the objective lens that focuses the collimated light onto the sample. Light reflected from the sample returns through the objective and is re-collimated. The reflected, collimated beam is directed to the system’s image sensor for determining the focusing purposes. For example, the beans distance and spot location on the image sensor is measure to determine focusing);
Ja and Condello are combinable because both are related to systems and methods for improved focus and focus tracking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use prism to converge the beams as taught by Condello in the system disclosed by Ja.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “consolidate the spots onto the focal plane of the image sensor” as disclosed by Condello in ¶0076.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ja and Condello to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Ja in view of Condello discloses wherein the controller is configured to generate an initial auto-focus estimate of a future focus state of the evaluation beam at a time when the evaluation beam reaches a defined position of the upstream set of spot arrays (Ja: In ¶0089 Ja provides support for an autofocus system which comprises in estimating a location of a target focal plane and maintain the focus at the target focal plane during scanning and imaging of the sample; Condello: See ¶0078).
Regarding Claim 3, Ja in view of Condello discloses wherein the controller is configured to update the initial auto-focus estimate in timing proximity to the reaching of the imaging area to defined position (Condello: Figs 2A and 2B illustrate examples for focus tracking where Condello uses one beam for providing look-ahead and look-behind for focus tracking; In ¶0078 he further teaches three-point differential off-axis predictive focus estimation – where the two additional beams are used to determine the focus distance along Z axis).
Regarding Claim 4, Ja in view of Condello discloses wherein the upstream set of spot arrays comprises a first upstream spot array, a second upstream spot array and a third upstream spot array (Condello: Figs 19 and 20 illustrate the spots from the top samples and bottom samples – which could be interpreted as “upstream” and “downstream” array. Examiner would like to state on the record that the “upstream” and “downstream” has not been defined in the claim, or in the instant specification).
Regarding Claim 5, Ja in view of Condello discloses wherein the downstream set of spot arrays comprises a first downstream spot array, a second downstream spot array and a third downstream spot array (Condello: Figs 19 and 20 illustrate the spots from the top samples and bottom samples – which could be interpreted as “upstream” and “downstream” array. Examiner would like to state on the record that the “upstream” and “downstream” has not been defined in the claim, or in the instant specification).
Regarding Claim 6, Ja in view of Condello discloses wherein each one of the multiple of spot arrays and the upstream set of spot arrays is staggered along a first axis and a second axis (Condello: Condello teaches this in Figs 21-23 where the spots are staggered along the different vertical axis).
Regarding Claim 7, Ja in view of Condello discloses wherein each one of the spot arrays is a linear spot array (Condello: This is discloses in Figs 3C, 3D and 4A).
Regarding Claim 8, Ja in view of Condello discloses wherein the optically processed beams form a pair of spots per each one of the multiple spot arrays, wherein a distance between spots of each pair is indicative of a focus state associated with a corresponding spot array (Condello: In ¶0128, Condello teaches that in focus tracking operations with multi-beam system, spot separation, or the distance between the spots of the focus tracking beams on the image sensor is measure to determine focusing.).
Regarding Claim 9, Ja in view of Condello discloses wherein the controller is configured to ignore detection signals based on sample elements illuminated by at least a part of the illumination beams (Condello: This is taught in ¶0059, where Condello teaches that methods are provided to block stray light caused by unwanted reflection that hinder the focus tracking beams).
Regarding Claim 11, this is a methods claim that has limitation parallel to the system claim of Claim 1. Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, this is a methods claim that has limitation parallel to the system claim of Claim 2. Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, this is a methods claim that has limitation parallel to the system claim of Claim 3. Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, this is a methods claim that has limitation parallel to the system claim of Claim 4. Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15, this is a methods claim that has limitation parallel to the system claim of Claim 5. Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16, this is a methods claim that has limitation parallel to the system claim of Claim 6. Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17, this is a methods claim that has limitation parallel to the system claim of Claim 7. Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 18, this is a methods claim that has limitation parallel to the system claim of Claim 8. Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 8.
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 PADMA HALIYUR whose telephone number is (571)272-3287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM - 4PM.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/PADMA HALIYUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639 March 11, 2026