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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it needs to be a separate sheet. 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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-8, 20-22, 26, and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (U.S. Patent 9,032,854), herein referred to as Yang.
In regards to claim 1, Yang discloses a system comprising: a chuck (sample holder 107) configured to accept a sample block (sample 108); a blade (cutting member 112) comprising a blade surface configured to remove a tissue section from the sample block, wherein the chuck (107) is moveable relative to (125/126) the blade surface of the blade (112); at least one sensor (surface orientation sensor assembly 114) configured to sense a front face of the sample block (“sensor assembly 114 is operable to sense or measure an orientation or angle of a surface of sample 108”; col. 2, lines 58-62); and a control system (control circuit 118) configured to: receive measurements from the at least one sensor; identify, from the measurements, a geometry of the front face; and identify, based on the geometry (“measure an orientation or angle of a surface”), an alignment of the front face with respect to the blade surface of the blade (col. 4, lines 5-10).
In regards to claim 2, Yang discloses wherein the at least one sensor is stationary (“sensor assembly 114 may be in a fixed positioned approximately vertically below cutting member or mechanism 112 and/or cutting plane 124” col. 3, lines 30-32.
In regards to claim 3, Yang discloses wherein the control system (118) is further configured to cause the chuck or the blade to move relative to each other to section the sample block align the front face relative to the blade surface.
“Sample holders capable of realigning an orientation of a surface of a sample so that they are parallel or more parallel with a cutting member and/or a cutting plane are known in the arts. In some embodiments, the feed drive system may have a multi-axis workpiece chuck or motorized chuck that is capable of adjusting an orientation of the cutting surface of the sample in two dimensions relative to a cutting member and/or cutting plane.” col. 3, lines 23-29; Col. 10, liners 10-17)
In regards to claim 4, Yang discloses wherein the control system (118) is configured to cause the chuck (107) or the blade (112) to move relative to each other to section the sample block after aligning the front face relative to the blade surface.
(“An embodiment of a method of sectioning may include microtome 100 autonomously sensing an orientation of a surface of sample 108 using sensor assembly 114, an operator manually or microtome 100 autonomously adjusting the orientation of the surface of sample 108, and microtome 100 taking a section of sample 108 after such adjustment” col. 3, lines 23-29)
In regards to claim 5, Yang discloses wherein the chuck (107) is configured to move along a first degree of freedom and a second degree of freedom, wherein the first degree of freedom is along an X axis (horizontal drive member 106; arrow 125) to align the front face relative to the blade surface and the second degree of freedom is along a Z axis (vertical drive member 105; arrow 126) to enable the blade to section the sample block.
In regards to claim 6, Yang discloses wherein the chuck is configured to move along three degrees of freedom( horizontal drive member 106; vertical drive member 105; rotational movement about two perpendicular axes through the motorized muti axis chuck; col. 10, lines 10-20).
In regards to claim 7, Yang discloses wherein the blade (112) and the at least one sensor (114) are stationary relative to one another (both mounted on mounting base 111; fig. 1).
In regards to claim 8, Yang discloses wherein identifying the geometry (“particular surface orientation measurement”) comprises identifying, from the measurements, an orientation of the front face relative to the blade surface (col. 2, line 10, 58-68).
In regards to claim 20, Yang discloses wherein causing the chuck or the blade to move relative to each other to align the front face relative to the blade surface comprises positioning the front face parallel to the blade surface
(“The sensed orientation may be used to adjust or align the surface of sample 108 so that it is parallel, substantially parallel, or at least more parallel with cutting member or mechanism 112 and/or cutting plane 124 associated with cutting member or mechanism 112 than it was prior to sensing” col. 3, lines 4-9).
In regards to claim 21, Yang discloses wherein causing the chuck (107) or the blade (112) to move relative to each other to align the front face relative to the blade surface comprises shaving one or more protrusions from the front face to smooth the front face.
(“An embodiment of a method of sectioning may include microtome 100 autonomously sensing an orientation of a surface of sample 108 using sensor assembly 114, an operator manually or microtome 100 autonomously adjusting the orientation of the surface of sample 108, and microtome 100 taking a section of sample 108 after such adjustment) (col. 3, lines 23-29)
In regards to claim 22, Yang discloses wherein causing the chuck or the blade to move relative to each other to align the front face relative to the blade surface comprises: shaving one or more protrusions from the front face to smooth the front face; and positioning the front face parallel to the blade surface (col. 3, lines 23-29).
In regards to claim 25, Yang discloses a system comprising: at least one sensor (114) configured to sense data regarding an alignment of a front face of a sample block and a blade surface of a blade (112) configured to remove a tissue section from the sample block (108); and a controller (control circuit 118) in communication with the at least one sensor (114) and configured to: receive data from the at least one sensor; identify, from the data, a geometry of the front face; identify, based on the geometry, the alignment of the front face with respect to the blade surface of the blade; and cause a chuck holding the sample block or the blade to move relative to each other to align the front face relative to the blade surface.
(“An embodiment of a method of sectioning may include microtome 100 autonomously sensing an orientation of a surface of sample 108 using sensor assembly 114, an operator manually or microtome 100 autonomously adjusting the orientation of the surface of sample 108, and microtome 100 taking a section of sample 108 after such adjustment” col. 3, lines 23-29)
In regards to claim 69, Yang discloses method comprising: receiving, by a controller (118), data sensed with at least one sensor (114), wherein the data relates to an alignment of a front face of a sample block received in a chuck and a blade surface of a blade configured to remove a tissue section from the sample block ;identifying, by the controller and from the data, a geometry of the front face; identifying, by the controller and based on the geometry, the alignment of the front face with respect to the blade surface of the blade; and causing the chuck or the blade to move relative to each other to align the front face relative to the blade surface.
(“An embodiment of a method of sectioning may include microtome 100 autonomously sensing an orientation of a surface of sample 108 using sensor assembly 114, an operator manually or microtome 100 autonomously adjusting the orientation of the surface of sample 108, and microtome 100 taking a section of sample 108 after such adjustment” col. 3, lines 23-29)
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Patent 9,032,854), herein referred to as Yang in view of Kerschmann et al. (U.S. Patent 6,330,348), herein referred to as Kerschmann. In regards to claim 9 and 10, Yang discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to wherein identifying the geometry comprises identifying, from the measurements, a topography of the front face. Kerschmann discloses system for detecting irregularities in the surface of a block mounted on a microtome (see abstract and col. 7, lines 13-40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized Kerschmann’s image-based block face analysis with Yang’s surface orientation system to identify both the orientation and topography of the sample face, thereby detecting surface irregularities that could adversely affect section quality.
Claims 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Patent 9,032,854), herein referred to as Yang in view of Manri et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0393331). In regards to claims 11-14, 16, Yang discloses that optical sensing mechanisms are suitable for sensing the sample surface but does not expressly disclose the claimed axial and lateral sensor configurations. Manri teaches leveling the surface of an embedded sample block relative to a microtome blade using a laser ranging sensor to measure the height or distance of the block at a plurality of positions in a vertical direction, calculating the tilt of the block surface in two axial directions from the measurements and moving the block stage according to the determined deviation to level the surface of the blade. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement Yang’s expressly completed optical sensing mechanism using Manri’s laser ranging sensor and multipoint measure technique in order to determine the orientation of the sample front face accurately and permit the front face to be aligned with the blade. Manri’s laser ranging sensor senses respective distance between the sensor and the front face at a plurality of positions as recited in claim 11, and 12 and necessarily detects the intersections between its generated laser signal and the front face at the respective measurement positions as recited in claim 13-14, 16.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Patent 9,032,854), herein referred to as Yang in view of Kerschmann et al. (U.S. Patent 6,330,348), herein referred to as Kerschmann. In regards to claim 15, Yang discloses that optical sensing mechanisms are suitable for sensing the sample surface but does not expressly disclose that the at least one sensor comprises a plurality of camera configured to capture one or more images of the front face. Kerschmann teaches an imaging system that captures an image of the surface of a sample block mounted in a microtome and processes the captured image to identify surface imperfections, including pits, bubbles, broad defects and deviations from flatness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement Yang’s expressly contemplated optical sensing mechanism using Kerschmann’s camera-based block face imaging and to provide a plurality of such camera each capturing one or more images of the front face, in order to obtain additional image data and improve the coverage and reliability of detecting surface irregularities.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Patent 9,032,854), herein referred to as Yang in view of Manri et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0393331)
In regards to claim 17, Yang discloses one or more position sensors configured to sense the position of the chuck, including sensors associated with each chuck axis that detect a middle nominal position and end positions. Yang does not expressly disclose a motor sensor configured to identify the power usage of the motor moving the chuck at each sensed positioned. Manri teaches controlling a motorized sample block stage based on the excitation torque and current supplied to the stage, including minimizing the excitation torque/current sharing to release the holding force and maximizing the excitation torque to fix the block stage in position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to monitor the motor current or power usage of Yang’s motorized chuck at the positions identified by Yang’s position sensors, as taught by Manri in order to determine the motor load associated with the chuck at each position and provide accurate control of the chuck during positioning and alignment.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Patent 9,032,854), herein referred to as Yang in view of Manri et al. (U.S. Publication 2020-0393331). In regards to claim 18, Yang discloses sensing a plurality of positions of the chuck but does not expressly disclose a force sensor configured to identify a force between the sample front face and the blade surface at each position. Manri teaches using a strain sensor to measure pressure between the pressure block and microtome blade, comparing the measured pressure with a threshold, and adjusting the distance between the blade and the sample block according to the measured pressure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Manri’s strain or force sensor into Yang’s system and correlate the measured force with the chuck positions identified by Yang’s position sensors in order to identify contact between the sample face and the blade, control the relative positioning of the sample and blade, and present improper or excessive contact during alignment and sectioning.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Patent 9,032,854), herein referred to as Yang in view of in view of Jakobi et al. (U.S. Patent 5,761,977), herein referred to as Jakobi. In regards to claim 19, Yang discloses sensing a plurality of positions of the chuck but does not expressly disclose a conductively sensor configured to identify conductivity at the blade surface at each chuck position. Jakobi teaches applying electrical voltage between a microtome knife and a sample preparation, detecting electrical current resulting from contact between the preparation and the knife, and continuously measuring the resulting electrical condition while the preparation is moved toward the knife. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill int eh art to incorporate Jakobi’s electrical contact or conductivity sensing arrangement into Yang’s system and associate the sensed conductivity condition with the chuck positions identified by Yang’s position sensors in order to determine precisely when and where the sample front face contacts the blades surface and thereby prevents excessive contact or damage during positioning.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Patent 9,032,854), herein referred to as Yang in view of Jakobi et al. (U.S. Patent 5,761,977), herein referred to as Jakobi.
In regards to claim 23, Yang discloses identifying, based on the geometry, the alignment of the front face with respect to the blade surface but does not expressly disclose determining whether the alignment exceeds a pre-determined threshold value or is outside of a nominal range. Jakobi discloses measuring an operating condition of a microtome and comparing the measurement with a predetermined threshold or permissible range to determine whether the condition is acceptable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have configured Yang’s controller to compare the determined alignment with a predetermined threshold or nominal alignment range, as taught by Jakobi, in order to determine whether corrective alignment is required and thereby ensure accurate sectioning of the sample block.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Patent 9,032,854), herein referred to as Yang in view of Jakobi et al. (U.S. Patent 5,761,977), herein referred to as Jakobi.
In regards to claim 24, Yang discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to the control system is further configured to output an alert to a user to manually correct the alignment of the front face relative to the blade surface. Jakobi discloses measuring an operating condition of a microtome, comparing the measurement with a predetermined threshold or permissible range, and generating an error message to alert the user when the measured condition is outside the permissible range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have configure Yang’s control system to generate an alert as taught by Jakobi when the alignment is determined to exceed the predetermined threshold or fall outside the nominal range, thereby notifying the user that manual correction of the alignment is required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
