Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/785,239

OBSERVATION APPARATUS AND OBSERVATION METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 26, 2024
Examiner
KIM, KIHO
Art Unit
2884
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Hamamatsu Photonics K K
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1419 granted / 1661 resolved
+17.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1688
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
54.1%
+14.1% vs TC avg
§102
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
§112
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1661 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a thickness distribution image generation unit” in combination with “generate” and “a thickness distribution image correction unit” in combination with “correct” in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. It is determined that in paragraph [0041] of the PG-publication of this application discloses “a computer” or the like for these units. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 5 – 7, and 11 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eastwood (Optics Letters, 2011; cited in the IDS). With respect to independent claim 1, Eastwood teaches An observation apparatus implied by Fig. 2 comprising: a light source See the figure caption of Fig. 1 configured to output light having a wavelength band, and irradiate an observation object a single-material object in the second paragraph of the left column on p. 1878 with the light; an imaging unit Gatan Ultrascan 1000 CCD as disclosed in the second paragraph of the left column on p. 1878 configured to receive light output from the light source and passed through the observation object as shown in Fig. 1(d), and acquire a phase contrast image in Fig. 1 of the observation object; a thickness distribution image generation unit as shown in Fig. 3; APR algorithm using T(x,y) in Equation (1) configured to generate a thickness distribution image of the observation object based on the phase contrast image; and a thickness distribution image correction unit as disclosed in the second paragraph of the right column on p. 1878 configured to correct the thickness distribution image based on a spectrum of the light output from the light source, wherein the thickness distribution image correction unit is configured to set using algorithm shown in Fig. 3 the thickness distribution image generated by the thickness distribution image generation unit as an initial image, and repeatedly perform calculation of an intensity distribution of the light after being passed through the observation object based on the spectrum and the thickness distribution image, calculation of an update amount based on the calculated intensity distribution and the phase contrast image, and update of the thickness distribution image based on the calculated update amount. With respect to dependent claim 5, as shown in Fig. 1(d) Eastwood teaches a spectrum measurement unit configured to measure the spectrum of the light output from the light source. With respect to dependent claim 6, Eastwood inherently teaches in Fig. 1(d) wherein the imaging unit and the spectrum measurement unit are configured in common. With respect to independent claim 7, as discussed in the rejection justification to claim 1, Eastwood teaches an observation method comprising: an imaging step of irradiating an observation object with light having a wavelength band output from a light source, receiving light passed through the observation object by an imaging unit, and acquiring a phase contrast image of the observation object; a thickness distribution image generation step of generating a thickness distribution image of the observation object based on the phase contrast image; and a thickness distribution image correction step of correcting the thickness distribution image based on a spectrum of the light output from the light source, wherein in the thickness distribution image correction step, the thickness distribution image generated in the thickness distribution image generation step is set as an initial image, and calculation of an intensity distribution of the light after being passed through the observation object based on the spectrum and the thickness distribution image, calculation of an update amount based on the calculated intensity distribution and the phase contrast image, and update of the thickness distribution image based on the calculated update amount are repeatedly performed. With respect to dependent claims 11 – 12, Eastwood teaches in Fig. 1(d) a spectrum measurement step of measuring the spectrum of the light output from the light source by a spectrum measurement unit and wherein the imaging unit and the spectrum measurement unit are configured in common. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 2 – 4 and 8 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastwood. The teaching of Eastwood has been discussed above. With respect to dependent claims 2 and 8, Eastwood is silent with wherein the thickness distribution image generation unit is configured to normalize the phase contrast image based on a background image acquired by the imaging unit, and generate the thickness distribution image based on the normalized phase contrast image. However, signal normalization is a common step in imaging processing. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Eastwood in order to calibration thickness distribution image. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. With respect to dependent claims 3 and 9, Eastwood is silent with wherein the thickness distribution image generation unit is configured to generate the thickness distribution image based on the phase contrast image by using a Paganin method on the assumption that irradiation light with which the observation object is irradiated is monochromatic light. However, paganing method is a widely used, non-iterative phase -retrieval algorithm for X-ay and neutron phase-contrast imaging. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Eastwood in order to reconstruct homogenous sample. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. With respect to dependent claims 4 and 10, Eastwood is silent with wherein the thickness distribution image generation unit is configured to generate the thickness distribution image based on the phase contrast image by using a method obtained by extending a Paganin method on the assumption that irradiation light with which the observation object is irradiated has the wavelength band. However, as discussed above, paganing method is a widely used, non-iterative phase -retrieval algorithm for X-ay and neutron phase-contrast imaging. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Eastwood in order to reconstruct homogenous sample. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 EST. 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571)272-2273. 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. KIHO KIM, Ph.D. Primary Examiner Art Unit 2884 /Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601696
CRYSTAL STRUCTURE ANALYSIS METHOD, CRYSTAL STRUCTURE ANALYSIS DEVICE, AND CRYSTAL STRUCTURE ANALYSIS PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596068
SENSING SYSTEMS AND REFLECTIVE OPTICAL ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591074
X-RAY TRANSMISSION MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585022
SYSTEMS, METHODS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR GENERATING DEPTH IMAGES BASED ON SHORT-WAVE INFRARED DETECTION INFORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586276
SYSTEM, METHOD AND/OR COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM FOR MITIGATION OF EFFECTS FROM PHOTON SEPTAL PENETRATION IN SPECT IMAGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+4.2%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1661 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month