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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because legal phraseology, i.e., “comprising”, on line 2 should be avoided in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: 1) page 1, line 21, “maintained” is misspelled; 2) page 16, line 6, “symmetry” is misspelled; 3) page 16, line 9, “outlet” is misspelled; 4) page 19, line 14, the double inclusion of “to prevent” should be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 6 has not been further treated on the merits.
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.
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 1-5, and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘456, taken together with Liebel et al ‘109.
Lee ‘456 (Figs. 2-4; paragraphs [0072], [0087]-[0094]), as cited by applicant on he IDS filed November 19, 2024, discloses an automatic oil dispenser for mounting onto an objective in an inverted microscope system, including an outer chamber (433) forming a cavity, an inlet port (372) below the outer chamber (433) for inputting oil into the outer chamber, a pump (242) for driving oil upwards through and out of the dispenser, an inner passage (376) which tapers to an annular outlet (380), and a channel (429) connecting the outer chamber (433) and the inner passage (376) such that oil fills the outer chamber (433), then the inner passage (376), then erupts through the outlet onto the objective lens (316) (claim 1). Lee ‘456 further discloses an internal channel within the device that extends radially and axially through the device to fluidically connect the inlet port (372) and the outer chamber (433) (claims 3-5). The Lee ‘456 device further includes a surface at (380) that contacts the lens (316) so that oil from the lens flows over the edge of the surface to a V-shaped gulley (396), which collects the oil leaving the surface of the lens and discharging from the device through a drain outlet from the V-shaped gulley to an outlet port (314) (claims 8 and 9). The outer surface of the V-shaped gulley (396) forms a seal that bounds the gulley (claim 12). The device further includes an o-ring (423) (claim 13), and wherein the body of the device, once assembled acts as a single piece of material (claim 14).
Lee ‘456 fails to teach the outer chamber (433) and the inner passage (376) as being in the form of an outer annulus and an inner annulus, with a channel connecting the two annuli that is diametrically opposite the inlet port, as recited by instant claims 1 and 2.
Liebel et al ‘109 (Figs. 7a and 7b) disclose an automatic oil dispenser for an inverted microscope, similar to that of Lee ‘456, wherein Liebel et al ‘109 disclose an outer annulus (12) that feeds an inner annulus surrounding the lens (3) via a channel (23) that is diametrically opposite the delivery inlet port (10) for the oil (7). It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the outer chamber shape of Lee ‘456 to be an outer annulus, with the channel feeding oil from the outer annulus being arranged diametrically opposite the inlet port position, in view of Liebel et al, since such would ensure a smooth uniform flow of the oil to the lens by distributing the oil around the entire circumference of the device prior to delivering the oil to the lens surface.
With regard to the manner of forming the internal channel, as disclosed by Lee ‘456, with respect to instant claim 5, it would have been entirely obvious to drill two straight holes to form the passage between the inlet port (372) and outer chamber (433) of Lee ‘456. It would have been likewise entirely obvious to form the inlet and outlet ports of the device as suggested by the reference combination with threaded interiors to facilitate maintenance of the device (claim 10). With respect to the specific placement of the dispenser relative to the lens, as set forth by instant claim 7, such would have been an obvious design choice, given the general state of the art and the overall teaching of Lee ‘456 and Liebel et al ‘109, at the time of the filing of the application.
Lastly, with respect to the device having a single plane of symmetry (claim 11), and the body of the dispenser being substantially a single piece of material (claim 14), one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application, would have found it to have been an obvious design choice to form the device with a single plane of symmetry and from a single piece of material, as by a well known 3D printing manufacturing method, if such were desired, since such would have been dictated by the ultimate appearance desired, rather than any substantial functional requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/C.S.B/6-27-26
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights