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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an optical system” on lime 5, and “an optical system” on line 20.It is not clear whether ““an optical system” on line 5 is the same or different from “an optical system” on line 20. . If it is the same the second should refer to the first and if different, they should be labeled so. The metes, bounds and scope of protection are not clear, and therefore claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1.
Claim 13 recites “an optical system” on lime 4, and “an optical system” on line 22.It is not clear whether “an optical system” on line 4 is the same or different from “an optical system” on line 22. . If it is the same the second should refer to the first and if different, they should be labeled so. The metes, bounds and scope of protection are not clear, and therefore claim is indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “an optical system” on lime 5, and “an optical system” on line 26.It is not clear whether ““an optical system” on line 5 is the same or different from ““an optical system” on line 26. . If it is the same the second should refer to the first and if different, they should be labeled so. The metes, bounds and scope of protection is not clear, and therefore claim is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “observation fluorescence image” on lime 3, “a captured image” on line 6 and on line 21.It is not clear whether “observation fluorescence image” on line 3 is the same or different from “a captured image” on line 6 and on line 21. If it is the same the second should refer to the first and if different, they should be labeled so. The metes, bounds and scope of protection is not clear, and therefore claim is indefinite.
As to claims 2-10 refer to claim 1 rejection
Claim 13 recites “observation fluorescence image” on limes 2-3, “a captured image” on line 6 and on line 23.It is not clear whether “observation fluorescence image” on lines2-3 is the same or different from “a captured image” on line 6 and on line 23. If it is the same the second should refer to the first and if different, they should be labeled so. The metes, bounds and scope of protection is not clear, and therefore claim is indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “a captured image” on line 6 and on line 27 and “observation fluorescence image” on lime 12,.It is not clear whether “observation fluorescence image” on line 12 is the same or different from “a captured image” on line 6 and on line 27. If it is the same the second should refer to the first and if different, they should be labeled so. The metes, bounds and scope of protection is not clear, and therefore claim is indefinite.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closes prior art NAKAGAWA, KAZUHIRO et al. (WO 2020022038 A1) does not explicitly teach or fairly suggest “acquiring a sample fluorescence intensity characteristic that associates a focal position and the sample fluorescence intensity with each other from the sample fluorescence intensity of each of the plurality of sample fluorescence images; and deriving a thickness of the sample in an optical axis direction on a basis of a frequency at which an amplitude of a function obtained by performing Fourier transform on the sample fluorescence intensity characteristic indicates zero” recited in claim 11 in combination with other features of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 11 is allowed.
Claims 1-10, 12-14 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR ANWAR AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7413. The examiner can normally be reached flex.
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, Edward Urban can be reached at (571)272-7899. 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.
/SAMIR A AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights