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 Arguments
Specification:
The amended title is not found indicative of the invention. The title is vague, describing the prior art, and has no informative value to one of ordinary skill in the art whether to document warrants further review.
Prior Art Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP 606.01 guides that a descriptive title may result in slightly longer title, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 appears to be missing a term in the "a position of the or" and will be interpreted to be "a position of the arm or." Appropriate correction is required.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mintz et al. (US 2019/0000576).
Mintz shows the following:
A probe for use with a sample chamber, the probe comprising:
an arm (robotic arm with instrument 70);
a collection optic (Para. [0109]: "At the distal end of the instrument 70, the distal tip may… The distal tip may also include a port for a camera, such as a fiberscope or a digital camera, to capture images of an internal anatomical space.") mounted on the arm, the arm insertable or inserted into the sample chamber to locate the collection optic within the sample chamber (patient; in addition "to locate the collection optic" is a statement of purpose and does not impart any particular structure);
a drive mechanism (Para. [0083]: "each actuator comprising an independently controllable motor") for moving the arm, wherein movement of the arm causes movement of the collection optic within the sample chamber; and
a drive control system (controller 206) that is configured to limit movement of the arm to a specified range geofencing movement of the arm, and the drive control system is programmable to adjust the specified range (Para. [0178]: "Accordingly, the controller 206 may limit the range of motion or workspace of a particular arm or arms in order to prevent collisions. Such a limitation can be set at the beginning of a procedure, or can be varied dynamically during the procedure based upon the positions of other arms. ").
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renishaw (WO 03/014794, cited in IDS of 08/15/2024) in view of Mintz.
Renishaw shows a probe device as follows:
A probe for use with a sample chamber, the probe comprising:
an arm ("mirror holder arm 22"; "optic arm 58");
a collection optic ("parabolic mirror 18") mounted on the arm, the arm insertable or inserted into the sample chamber to locate the collection optic within the sample chamber ("chamber 10");
a drive mechanism ("retraction mechanism 32," "Other adjustable mounts which constrain the position of the parabolic mirror 18 in six degrees of freedom are also suitable," p. 14: 11-14; " the retraction screw 38, which may be motor-driven," p. 9:1) for moving the arm, wherein movement of the arm causes movement of the collection optic within the sample chamber; and
a drive control system that is configured to limit movement of the arm to a specified range geofencing movement of the arm, and the drive control system is ("Retraction of the parabolic mirror is limited by an adjustable stop (not shown) on the retraction screw." The term "drive control system" is not a particular structure. "Other adjustable mounts which constrain the position of the parabolic mirror 18 in six degrees of freedom are also suitable.").
Renishaw shows an adjustable stop but does not show the drive control system is programmable.
Mintz shows a controller 206 that limits the range of motion of an arm that has a collection optic (camera) in order to prevent collisions and the range can be varied dynamically (para. [0165]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a controller as taught by Mintz to limit the range of the retraction arm of Renishaw in order to prevent collisions, to easily adjust the retraction arm, and in order to make the manual adjustment to be automatic by easily/automatically adjusting the stops (range) of the retraction arm.
7. A probe according to claim 1, wherein the drive mechanism is arranged to move the arm in orthogonal directions using linear translation stages (Renishaw: see orthogonal arrows in Fig. 2) and the drive control system is programmable with limits of movement for each translation stage (It would be obvious to control the stages for the same reasons discussed for claim 1 above).
8. A method of mounting a probe according to claim 1 to an electron microscope, the method comprising programming the specified range based on an internal geometry of a sample chamber of the electron microscope (Renishaw shows the movement to be constrained as discussed for claim 1 above, and Mintz shows the controller limiting motion to avoid collision and thus the controller would limit the motion to not collide with the chamber).
9. A method according to claim 8, comprising retrofitting the probe to the electron microscope (see scanning electron microscope 10 in Fig. 1 of Renishaw).
10. A probe according to claim 1, wherein the probe is configured for use with a sample chamber of an electron beam microscope that generates an electron beam onto a sample, and the collection optic has an aperture therein for allowing the electron beam to pass therethrough (See Renishaw Abstract).
11. A probe according to claim 1, wherein the collection optic is a mirror (parabolic mirror 18).
12. A probe according to claim 11, wherein the mirror is a parabolic mirror (parabolic mirror 18).
13. A probe according got claim 1, wherein the arm comprises a tube and the collection optic is arranged to direct the light along the tube ("mirror holder arm 22 having an optical axis" p. 7:5-6)
14. A probe according to claim 1, comprising a sealing element for sealing a port in the sample chamber through which the probe has been inserted, the sealing element comprising a window, and the arm is insertable into the sample chamber to locate the collection optic for directing light scattered or generated from the point on the sample out of the sample chamber through the window (p. 9:21-34).
15. A probe according to claim 1, wherein the probe is a Raman probe which couples the light into an optical fiber for delivery to a Raman spectrometer (p. 7:30).
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renishaw and Mintz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bacchi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,852,413).
Renishaw shows all the elements of the claimed probe as discussed above for claim 1 and teaches "other adjustable mounts which constrain the position of the parabolic mirror 18 in six degrees of freedom are also suitable," but does not show that the drive mechanism is an absolute position encoder.
Bacchi shows an absolute position encoder and teaches the encoder has an application for use in positioning a specimen under a microscope.
For claims 2 and 3, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the absolute encoder of Bacchi in the electron microscope of Renishaw in order to constrain the position of the probe with high resolution measurements that encoders offer.
4. A probe according to claim 2, wherein the drive control system limits an extent of movement of the arm based on the specified range and position measurements generated by the encoders (the controller as discussed for claim 1 limits the movement and encoders provide position measurements).
5. A probe according to claim 2, wherein the drive control system is arranged to control the drive mechanism to map the sample based on feedback from the encoder (see claim 4 above).
6. A probe according to claim 2, wherein the drive control system is arranged to stop further movement of the drive mechanism in a direction if the position measured by the corresponding encoder corresponds to a limit of the specified range. (See discussion of the controller for claim 1 above).
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 Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights