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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 63, 68–70, and 81–82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 217981206 U to Guo et al. (cited in Applicant’s June 10, 2025, IDS, a machine translation is attached with this Office action, citations are to the attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 63, Guo discloses (e.g., at least Fig. 3A and its corresponding description, starting in paragraph [n0150]–[n0166]) an imaging system 100, comprising: an objective lens 110, an optical correction element (paragraph [n0150], “compensating optics . . . can be moved into or out of the optical path in the imaging module,” where compensating is considered optical correction), and image sensors (e.g., 124), wherein the optical correction element can move into or out of an imaging optical path of the imaging system (paragraph [n0150]); when the optical correction element moves into the imaging optical path, the optical correction element is positioned between the objective lens and the image sensors (paragraph [n0150], “compensating optics is included in the optical path between the objective lens and an image sensor”).
Regarding Claim 68, Guo discloses the imaging system according to claim 63, wherein a beamsplitter assembly 130 is arranged between the objective lens and the image sensors and configured for splitting an optical signal acquired by the objective lens into a plurality of light beams of different wavelengths; the number of the image sensors is greater than one, and each of the image sensors is configured for acquiring a light beam of at least one wavelength and generating an image (e.g., Fig. 3A; paragraphs [n0156] and [n0162], “the first dichroic filter 130 can be used to select which wavelength or wavelengths of light output from the light source reach the sample,” “some implementations [] include multiple detection channels for imaging at different emission wavelengths”).
Regarding Claim 69, Guo discloses wherein the beamsplitter assembly is configured for splitting the optical signal acquired by the objective lens into a first light beam and a second light beam (Fig. 3A); the image sensors comprise a first image sensor and a second image sensor (124s, Fig. 3A); the first image sensor is configured for acquiring the first light beam and generating an image, and the second image sensor is configured for acquiring the second light beam and generating an image (Figs. 3A/3B).
Regarding Claim 70, Guo discloses wherein the beamsplitter assembly comprises a first dichroic mirror 130, a first mirror 135, and a second mirror 140; the first dichroic mirror is arranged on the optical axis of the objective lens and obliquely with respect to the optical axis of the objective lens (Fig. 3A); the first dichroic mirror is configured for splitting the optical signal acquired by the objective lens into the first light beam and the second light beam, such that the first light beam is transmitted to the first mirror and the second light beam is reflected to the second mirror (paragraph [n0160] and Fig. 3A); the first mirror is configured for reflecting the first light beam to the first image sensor, and the second mirror is configured for reflecting the second light beam to the second image sensor (paragraph [n0160] and Fig. 3A).
Regarding Claim 81, Guo discloses a sequencing system, comprising the imaging system of claim 63 (e.g., paragraphs [n0197] and [n0211], teaching imaging for sequencing applications).
Regarding Claim 82, Guo discloses (e.g., at least Fig. 3A and its corresponding description, starting in paragraph [n0150]–[n0166]; see also the rejection of Claim 63 above) an imaging method for imaging a sample of interest via an imaging system (e.g., paragraph [n0150]), wherein the sample of interest comprises a first surface and a second surface (“first and second surfaces of the bisurface flow cell”), the imaging system comprises an objective lens 110, an optical correction element (compensating optics), and image sensors (e.g., 124, including image sensors), and the optical correction element is capable of moving into and out of an imaging optical path of the imaging system (paragraph [n0150], “compensating optics . . . can be moved into or out of the optical path in the imaging module,” where compensating is considered optical correction); the method comprises: controlling the optical correction element to move into the imaging optical path to position the optical correction element between the objective lens and the image sensors; acquiring a first optical signal generated by the first surface of the sample of interest using the image sensors (paragraph [n0150], “a compensating optics is included in the optical path between the objective lens and an image sensor or photodetector array configured to capture an image of the first surface”); and controlling the optical correction element to move out of the imaging optical path, and acquiring a second optical signal generated by the second surface of the sample of interest using the image sensors (“the imaging module can be configured to image the second surface when the compensating optics are removed or excluded from the optical path between the objective lens 110 and the image sensor or photodetector array configured to capture the second surface”).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 64, 71–74, and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo.
Regarding Claim 64, Guo would have rendered obvious wherein when the optical correction element moves into the imaging optical path, the optical correction element is positioned on the optical axis of the objective lens (paragraph [n0150]); the center deviation between the optical correction element and the objective lens is not greater than 0.5 mm (where minimizing deviation would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, to ensure maximum reliability and predictability of the device, where an ideal deviation would be 0, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 71, Guo would have rendered obvious the imaging system according to claim 63, comprising a light source assembly (paragraph [n0165], teaching a light source, where objective lens 110 collects light emitted from the light source) configured for emitting an excitation light beam through the objective lens to a sample of interest (Fig. 3A); the light source assembly comprises a first light source and a first lens arranged in an illumination path of the first light source (where Guo does not explicitly disclose a lens associated with the light source, but including a lens with the light source, such as for collimating or otherwise tuning the light emission, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features); the first lens is configured for controlling a beam aperture of the first light source into the objective lens (where Guo teaches selecting an appropriate aperture for the objective lens, suggesting controlling aperture of the light source, e.g., paragraphs [n0150], [n0180], and [n0183]).
Regarding Claim 72, Guo would have rendered obvious the imaging system according to claim 63, comprising an autofocus apparatus (paragraph [n0166], “the imaging module includes an autofocus system configured to rapidly and sequentially refocus the imaging module on a first surface and/or a second surface”), wherein the autofocus apparatus comprises a second light source and a focusing sensor; the second light source is configured for projecting a light beam emitted by the second light source onto the sample of interest through the objective lens; the focusing sensor is configured for receiving a light beam reflected by the sample of interest and collimated by the objective lens and converting an optical signal into an electric signal, such that the objective lens moves according to the electric signal and the sample of interest is located on the focal plane of the objective lens (where Guo does not appear to teach further details of the autofocus apparatus, but selecting known components and configurations as claimed, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features; also MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claim 73, Guo would have rendered obvious the imaging system according to claim 63, comprising a driving apparatus connected to the optical correction element, wherein the driving apparatus is configured for driving the optical correction element to move into or out of the imaging optical path (where paragraph [n0150] teaches that the compensating optics can be moved into or out of the optical path, reasonably suggesting a driving apparatus that achieves the function; noting also that paragraph [n0300] teaches a drive unit for translation movement of the stage component, further reasonably suggesting a similar drive unit for the compensating optics translational movement)
Regarding Claim 74, Guo would have rendered obvious wherein the driving apparatus comprises a driving member and a transmission assembly connected to the driving member; the transmission assembly is connected to the optical correction element, and the driving member drives the optical correction element to move through the transmission assembly (e.g., where paragraph [n0150] teaches that the compensating optics can be moved into or out of the optical path, reasonably suggesting a driving apparatus that achieves the function; noting also that paragraph [n0300] teaches a drive unit for translation movement of the stage component, further reasonably suggesting a similar drive unit for the compensating optics translational movement, and where known drive units for translation movement, such as a driving member connected to a transmission assembly, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 77, Guo would have rendered obvious wherein the optical correction element comprises a lens tube, an optical lens set, and a holder; the optical lens set is arranged within the lens tube, and the holder connects the lens tube and the transmission assembly (e.g., paragraph [n0161], suggesting a barrel or tube lens configuration).
Claims 75 and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,078,420 to Macken.
Regarding Claim 75, Guo does not explicitly disclose further details of a transmission assembly, and thus does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmission assembly comprises a screw and a slider sleeving the screw; the screw is connected to the driving member, and the slider is connected to the optical correction element; the driving member is configured for driving the screw to rotate, so as to actuate the slider and the optical correction element to move.
Macken discloses an optical system, and teaches controlling lateral movement using a slide driven by a lead screw (e.g., col. 5, lines 32–36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Guo such that the transmission assembly was a suitable configuration such as one taught by Mackey (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07), in which case the transmission assembly would comprise, or have been obvious to include, a screw and a slider sleeving the screw; the screw is connected to the driving member, and the slider is connected to the optical correction element; the driving member is configured for driving the screw to rotate, so as to actuate the slider and the optical correction element to move.
Regarding Claim 76, the combination of Guo and Macken would have rendered obvious wherein the driving apparatus further comprises a seat and a rail arranged on the seat, the slider is slidably arranged on the rail, and the driving member is mounted on the seat (where selecting known components and configurations as claimed, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features; also MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Claims 78–80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,769,698 to Ledley et al.
Regarding Claim 78, Guo does not explicitly disclose a detection apparatus configured for limiting the travel of movement of the optical correction element.
Ledley discloses an optical device, and teaches using a position detector to determine limits of movement for the moveable stage and stop movement when the limit is reached (e.g., col. 12, line 65 to col. 13, line 7; col. 13, lines 35–50; and col. 14, line 48 to col. 15, line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Guo to include a detection apparatus configured for limiting the travel of movement of the optical correction element, as suggested by Ledley, in order to control movement and prevent moving beyond the desired range.
Regarding Claim 79, the combination of Guo and Ledley would have rendered obvious wherein the detection apparatus comprises a first detector and a second detector (e.g., detectors for LFTLIM, RTLIM, FWDLIM, and BKDLIM); the first detector is configured for triggering a first signal when the optical correction element moves into the imaging optical path, and the second detector is configured for triggering a second signal when the optical correction element moves out of the imaging optical path (where selecting the specific parameters of the stop limiters would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, based on desired positioning, where Ledley teaches that the limits can be set, for example, by potentiometers P3–P6); the driving apparatus stops operation in response to the first signal or the second signal (col. 13, lines 35–50 of Ledley).
Regarding Claim 80, the combination of Guo and Ledley would have rendered obvious wherein the first detector is arranged on the side where the optical correction element moves into the imaging optical path, and the second detector is arranged on the side where the optical correction element moves out of the imaging optical path (where selecting the specific parameters of the stop limiters would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, based on desired positioning, where Ledley teaches that various limits LFTLIM, RTLIM, FWDLIM, and BKDLIM can be set, for example, by potentiometers P3–P6); the detection apparatus comprises a trigger synchronously moving with the optical correction element; when the optical correction element moves into the imaging optical path, the trigger cooperates with the first detector to allow the first detector to trigger the first signal; when the optical correction element moves out of the imaging optical path, the trigger cooperates with the second detector to allow the second detector to trigger the second signal (where the specific triggering mechanism of Ledley differs; however, selecting an alternate triggering mechanism, achieving the same result, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 65–67 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 65, Guo would have rendered obvious wherein the optical correction element comprises an optical lens set configured for eliminating spherical aberration (e.g., paragraphs [n0133] and [n0263], suggesting minimizing aberration); however, Guo does not disclose that the optical lens set comprises a first optical lens, a second optical lens, and a third optical lens that are arranged in sequence; the combined focal power of the first optical lens, the second optical lens, and the third optical lens is approximately 0 with a tolerance of ±1%. Claims 66–67 depend from Claim 65.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights