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
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant(s) asserts with arguments (on page 2) that neither Heinke nor Tanaka, taken individually or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the features of “a sensor mount configured to connect the infrared assembly to the cooling element” as required by independent claim 1. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that in the same field of endeavor, Tanaka teaches the well-known concept regarding the features of “a sensor mount configured to connect (see fig. 18 unit 300, where the examiner notes that by referring to fig. 18 that the sensor 300 is mounted on and physically attached to the surface structure of the infrared assembly of parts of the imaging apparatus 30) the infrared assembly (see fig. 18 unit 30, paragraphs [0091-0092], where the examiner notes that by referring to fig. 18 that the infrared assembly of the imaging apparatus 30 consists of a plurality of parts 300, and/or 31, and/or 330 that carries out infrared processes arranged together as a single functional system) to the cooling element” (see fig. 18 unit 33).
Furthermore, the applicant(s) asserts with arguments (on page 3) that there is no indication that the device of Heinke is a quantum infrared sensor. In addition, the applicants(s) assert that there is no evidence of record that the substrate of Heinke is a thin substrate. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant(s) relies (i.e., “a quantum infrared sensor; and a thin substrate”) are not recited in the rejected independent claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Moreover, the applicants assert (on pages 2-4) that examiner’s reasons for obviousness have not been clearly articulated. In response to appellant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation for the rejection is found by one of ordinary skill in the art since both references are both in same infrared camera imaging field of endeavor where the cited teachings noted in the secondary reference of Tanaka overcome the deficiencies of the primary reference of Heinke noted above can thereby improve thermal camera imaging quality and efficiency.
Accordingly, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejections and applicability of the prior art used. Since dep. claims 2-10 each depend on independent claim 1 these dependent claims are rejected for the same or similar reasons as the claims from which they depend. Rejections of claims 1-10 are sustained for the reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinke et al. (“Heinke”) (US Pub. No.: 2014/0028854 A1) in view of Tanaka et al. (“Tanaka”) (US Pub. No.: 2021/0375974 A1) for the same reasoning as stated in the office action dated 05/12/2026.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liedtke et al. (US Pub. No.: 2014/0138517 A1) discloses confocal scanning microscope, operating method for same and method for manipulating a sample.
Viereck et al. (US Pub. No.: 2010/0194873 A1) discloses method and device for microscopically examining a sample, computer program and computer program product.
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1220. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
September 24, 2026
