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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The drawings only illustrate an embodiment where the first and second movements are provided by two actuators 122 and 124 (see Fig. 1). Therefore, the feature of “wherein the first movement and the second movement are superimposed by a single actuator” as required by claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. In the present drawings, a vertical movement of the sample holder continues when the device is in the retreat phase. For example, in Fig. 2, the retreat phase 240 includes a vertical movement component. Therefore, the feature of “wherein the device is configured to block and/or stop the first movement, based on the indication that the device is in the retreat phase” as required by claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 74 recites, “the retreat phase 242”. However, paragraphs 71 and 72 previously refer to “retreat phase 240”. The retreat phase should be indicated with a single, consistent reference character. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 14 at the final line recites, “based in”. This recitation should read – based on [[in]] –. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/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 10 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires that the device is in the retreat phase in order for the indication signal to be provided. To elaborate, the claim requires that the device is “configured to check whether the device is in the retreat phase by checking one or more of” three conditions. However, the conditions recited do not necessarily require that the device is in the retreat phase. For example, merely because the sample has been placed in the sample holder does not mean that the device is in the retreat phase – indeed, as disclosed in the present application, the sample is placed in the sample holder through both the first and second movements. As another example, merely because the blade has been placed in the blade holder does not mean that the device is in the retreat phase – indeed, as disclosed in the present application, the blade is placed in the blade holder through both the first and second movements. As disclosed in the present application, since the sample is in the sample holder and since the blade is in the blade holder even when the device is not in the retreat phase, the present specification suggests that claim 10 should not be interpreted as determining that the device is in the retreat phase just because the sample is in the sample holder or the blade is in the blade holder. Thus, it is unclear whether the final paragraph of claim 10 should be interpreted as providing the indication signal based on at least one of the conditions being true and the device being in the retreat phase. Put another way, claim 10 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the device must actually be in the retreat phase in order for the indication signal to be provided. The final paragraph suggests that the device need not be in the retreat phase for the indication signal to be provided, but interpreting the claim in view of the present specification suggests that the device must be in the retreat phase for the indication signal to be provided.
Claim 11 is indefinite for multiple reasons. First, the claim recites, “these conditions” at the final line. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear what conditions are encompassed by “these conditions”. For example, it is unclear whether “these conditions” being true requires that the device is in the retreat phase. If “these conditions” refers only to “during a start procedure” and/or “during the first movement”, then the device provides the indication signal when the device is in the first movement, even if the device is not in the retreat phase. This interpretation of claim appears inconsistent with the present disclosure. As such, claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear what is required for the device to provide the indication signal.
Claim 12 recites, “wherein the device is configured to block and/or stop the first movement, based on the indication that the device is in the retreat phase”. This recitation is indefinite in view of the present specification because it is unclear what is required by this recitation. Consider Fig. 2 of the present drawings – the retreat phase ‘240’ includes a component of vertical movement of the sample holder, such that the sample holder continues to have some degree of the first movement even in the retreat phase ‘240’. Moreover, as acknowledged by claim 5, the movement of Fig. 2 is repeatable multiple times to cut multiple slices. Claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear what is required to “block and/or stop” the first movement based on the indication that the device is in the retreat phase. Put another way, if the device is operated to perform multiple cuts to obtain multiple slices of the sample, then the first movement is not stopped based on the indication that the device is in the retreat phase. The retreat phase is merely a portion of the full motion of the sample holder, where the full motion is repeatable in cycles. As such, it is unclear what is required for the device to block and/or stop the first movement based on the indication that the device is in the retreat phase. Would not claim 12 require that any vertical movement of the sample holder is prohibited as soon as the retreat phase 240 is entered in Fig. 2? The problem with this interpretation is that it is inconsistent with the present disclosure, since Fig. 2 clearly permits continued vertical movement of the sample holder even in the retreat phase 240. Alternatively, can claim 12 be satisfied if the vertical movement of the sample holder is reversed in the retreat phase? This interpretation is consistent with Fig. 2, but arguably interprets “block and/or stop” in an overly broad manner. Alternatively, does claim 12 encompass some other criteria in addition to the retreat phase being required to block and/or stop the first movement? Since it is unclear what is required by claim 12 in view of the present specification, the claim is indefinite.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 5,226,335 to Sitte et al.
Regarding claim 15, Sitte discloses a method for operating a device for slicing a sample 7 (see Figs. 1 and 3, e.g.),
wherein the device comprises a sample holder 6 and a blade holder 9 & 9’ which are configured for a movement relative to each other (see Fig. 3 showing a movement path of the sample holder 6 relative to the blade holder 9 & 9’); and
wherein the movement comprises:
a first movement with a first phase during which the sample 7 is cut by a blade 10 of the blade holder 9 & 9’ (see Fig. 3, where the first movement is a vertical component of the movement between switchover point U1 and switchover point U2); and
a second movement (see Fig. 3, where the second movement is a horizontal component of the movement between switchover point U2 and switchover point U1) with a retreat phase (the retreat phase can be, as one option, a phase extending from switchover point U2 to point C) in which the sample holder 6 is moved away from and/or to the blade 10 (see Fig. 3);
the method comprising:
determining that the device is in the retreat phase (the device determines when switchover point U2 is reached in order to change a speed at this point – see, e.g., the Abstract; see also col. 5, lines 16-19); and
providing an indication that the device is in the retreat phase (see col. 5, lines 16-19; see alternatively col. 5, lines 20-25, disclosing that the speed is displayed, and a high-speed is indicative of the retreat phase).
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) 1-6, 9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 5,226,335 to Sitte et al. in view of US Pat. No. 8,051,760 B2 to Walter.
Regarding claim 1, Sitte discloses a device (shown in Fig. 1) for cutting slices (such as F1-F5 shown in Fig. 4) of a sample 7, the device comprising:
a sample holder 6 configured to hold the sample 7 and to move the sample 7 in one or more directions (see Fig. 3 showing vertical and horizontal movement directions); and
a blade holder 9 & 9’ configured to hold a blade 10 to cut the sample 7 (see Figs. 1 and 3);
wherein the device is configured to:
move the sample holder 6 relative to the blade holder 9 & 9’ in a first movement that comprises a first phase S in which the sample 7 is cut by the blade 10 (see Fig. 3; the first phase S extends from switchover point U1 to switchover point U2; note that the first movement can be considered as only a vertical component of the movement); and
move the sample holder 6 relative to the blade holder 9 & 9’ in a second movement that comprises a retreat phase (the second movement extending from switchover point U2 to switchover point U1; note that the second movement can be considered as only a horizontal component of the movement) in which the sample holder 6 is moved away from and/or to the blade 10 (see Fig. 3; e.g., the retreat phase including movement from switchover point U2 to point C);
wherein both the first movement and the second movement are executed to cut the sample 7 in a pre-defined direction (see Fig. 3); and
wherein the device is configured to indicate whether the device is in the retreat phase (see col. 5, lines 16-19; see alternatively col. 5, lines 20-25, disclosing that the speed is displayed, and a high-speed is indicative of the retreat phase).
Regarding claim 2, Sitte discloses that the sample holder 6 is configured to be actuated manually and/or electrically to perform the first movement and/or the second movement (see col. 2, lines 30-36).
Regarding claim 3, Sitte discloses that the second movement is substantially perpendicular to the first movement (see Fig. 3; note that the first movement can be limited to the vertical component of the movement and the second movement can be the horizontal component of the movement, just as is the case with respect to Fig. 2 of the present drawings, in which the first and second movements are components of a non-linear closed path).
Regarding claim 4, Sitte discloses that the second movement is smaller than the first movement (see Fig. 3, where this feature is satisfied when the second movement is limited to a horizontal movement and the first movement is limited to a vertical movement; consistent with Fig. 2 of the present drawings, the first and second movements can be considered as vertical and horizontal components, respectively, of non-linear movement).
Regarding claim 5, Sitte discloses that the device is configured to perform the first movement and/or the second movement as periodical movements (see Fig. 3 and col. 7, lines 26-46).
Regarding claim 6, Sitte discloses that the first movement and the second movement are superimposed by a single actuator 20 (see Figs. 1 and 3; since the first and second movements can be vertical and horizontal components of the path shown in Fig. 3, the actuator 20 provides each of the movements, at least between points A and C in Fig. 3; note that as best understood in view of the present specification, this recitation encompasses at least a portion of the first movement being superimposed with at least a portion of the second movement).
Regarding claim 9, Sitte discloses that the device is configured to provide an acoustic signal based upon the device being in the retreat phase (see col. 5, lines 16-19).
Regarding claim 11, Sitte discloses that the device is configured to check whether the device is in the retreat phase during the first movement (see Fig. 3 and the Abstract; signals from the sensors 27-29 determine when the switchover point U2 is reached; these signals are monitored during the first movement) and wherein the device is configured to provide an indication signal based upon at least one of these conditions being true (as best understood, this feature is satisfied because the device provides an indication signal when the device passes each of switch switchover points U1 and U2 per col. 5, lines 16-19).
Regarding claim 12, Sitte discloses that the device is configured to stop the first movement, based on the indication that the device is in the retreat phase (as best understood, this feature is satisfied because the first movement reverses when the device is in the retreat phase, which interpretation appears consistent with Fig. 2 of the present drawings).
Sitte fails to disclose that the blade holder is configured to move the blade in one or more directions as required by claim 1.
Walter, though, teaches a microtome having a blade holder 16 that is configured to move a blade 18 in one or more directions (see the directions indicated by the double headed arrow 34). [Claim 1] Walter teaches that increasing a spacing between a blade holder and a specimen holder is advantageous to allow a specimen change to be carried out (see col. 3, lines 28-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sitte by making the blade holder movable in directions away from and back toward the specimen holder in order to provide increased spacing for changing a specimen in the specimen holder in view of the teachings of Walter. This modification is further obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Sitte and Walter together disclose each claimed element as noted above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have provided the blade holder of Sitte with the ability to move toward and way from the sample holder using the method disclosed by Walter, and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately since Walter already teaches the use of horizontally adjustable blade holder usable with a horizontally moveable sample holder, and since no function of Sitte is removed by this modification. Further, the results of this combination would have been predictable because Walter already teaches the use of a horizontally movable blade holder in conjunction with a horizontally movable sample holder, and the horizontal movement provides more space for changing the specimen as noted by Walter.
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 5,226,335 to Sitte et al. as modified by US Pat. No. 8,051,760 B2 to Walter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 8,051,760 B2 to Walter.
Sitte, as modified, fails to disclose that the second movement is adjusted by a rotating wheel, and the retreat phase is indicated for the rotating wheel, as required by claim 7. Sitte, as modified, also fails to disclose that the device is configured to check whether the device is in the retreat phase by checking one or more of following conditions: whether the sample has been placed in the sample holder; whether the blade has been placed in the blade holder; or whether a rotating adjustment wheel for commanding the second movement is positioned such that the device moves into the retreat phase; and wherein the device is configured to provide an indication signal based upon at least one of the conditions being true as required by claim 10.
Walter, though, teaches a microtome having a rotating wheel 40 that adjusts a second movement (a horizontal movement produced by motor unit 22 in Fig. 1; see col. 4, lines 10-23), where a retreat phase is indicated for the rotating wheel 40 (via the detents into which the knob 44 of the rotating wheel 40 snaps; see col. 4, lines 10-16; alternatively, the retreat phase is ‘indicated for the rotating wheel’ by rotation of the knob 44 of the rotating wheel 40 per col. 4, lines 17-23). [Claim 7] Walter further teaches that the microtome is configured to check whether the device is in the retreat phase by checking whether a rotating adjustment wheel for commanding the second movement is positioned such that the device moves into the retreat phase (see col. 4, lines 19-25; the device determines that the motor unit 28 cannot be operated ‘during fine positioning’, which is during rotation of the rotating adjustment wheel 40, in particular rotation of the knob 44 thereof); and wherein the microtome is configured to provide an indication signal based upon at least one of the conditions being true (see col. 4, lines 19-25; here, the indication signal is a signal that prevents the motor unit 28 from operating) [Claim 10]. Walter teaches that the rotating adjustment wheel is advantageous in order to control operation of the microtome, where the rotating wheel is a particularly advantageous structure for controlling operation of the microtome because the wheel can be operated by a single hand, operation is simple and logical, no visual contact with the wheel is required, and the wheel is easy for an operator to learn (see col. 5, lines 37-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Sitte, as modified, with a rotating adjustment wheel having the above discussed features of Walter. This modification is advantageous because it provides a control for the microtome of Sitte, as modified, that can be operated with a single hand (leaving another hand free for other tasks), is simple and logical , required no visual contact (such that a user can look through the microscope while operating the wheel), and is easy to learn. Further still, since Sitte, as modified, provides an indication each time the device changes its operating speed, providing Sitte, as modified, with a wheel that controls operation of the device allows the wheel to control a movement of the device to switchover point U2. Since the wheel of Sitte, as thus modified, can control movement of the device to switchover point U2, and since switchover point U2 is a point where a notification is provided per Sitte, Sitte, as thus modified teaches that the device is configured to provide an indication signal indicating that the device is in the retreat phase based on a command from the wheel as required by claim 10.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 5,226,335 to Sitte et al. as modified by US Pat. No. 8,051,760 B2 to Walter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0136089 A1 to Bui et al.
Regarding claim 8, Sitte, as modified, discloses that the device is configured to provide a visual signal (see Sitte at col. 5, lines 16-19).
However, Sitte, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose any structure for displaying the visual signal. As such, Sitte, as modified, fails to disclose that the device is configured to provide the visual signal to a microscope and/or a monitor connected to the device as required by claim 8.
Bui teaches a microtome that is configured to provide a visual signal to a monitor that is connected to the microtome (see paragraph 66; the connection is via a cable provided at one of the disclosed jacks).
Since Sitte, as modified, fails to disclose any structure for displaying the visual signal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Sitte, as modified, with a monitor that is connected to the device of Sitte, as modified, in view of the teachings of Bui. This modification is advantageous in order to provide a means to display the visual signal to the user. That is, the monitor provides an image of a signal that the user is able to obverse.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 13 requires that the device is “configured to block and/or stop an adjustment of a movement of the blade holder parallel to the second movement, based on an indication that the device is in the retreat phase.” No known reference or combination of references teaches or suggests this feature. While Sitte provides an indication that the device is in the retreat phase, Sitte does not teach or suggest blocking or stopping an adjustment of a movement of the blade holder parallel to the second movement based on the indication that the device is in the retreat phase. No other known reference, including prior art cited below, cures the deficiencies of Sitte.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 113319899 A to Yin teaches a microtome where an LCD display screen displays in real time each parameter and state of the microtome in the working process, so that operating personnel can quickly know each operation state of each index and slice processing of the slicing machine, and can change the operation state of the slicing machine through the adjusting button. See the final paragraph of page 3 of the English language translation of Yin.
US Pat. No. 4,691,151 to Behme et al., which discloses a microtome where movement of a specimen holder is indicated with a light. See col. 3, lines 16-40.
WO 2008/148835 A1 to Walter teaches unlocking a brake of a microtome when a sensor detects that a user contacts a rotating wheel.
US Pub. No. 2004/0035275 A1 to Lihl et al. teaches a LED that indicates a space between a specimen and a blade. See in particular Fig. 3.
US Pat. No. 10,012,567 B2 to Bui et al. teaches a microtome where an alarm lights up, vibrates, or makes a noise when a hand wheel is being rotated to alert a user that a cutting operation is being performed. See col. 14, lines 27-31.
WO 2025/002633 A1 to Chan teaches providing various lights to alert a user as to various operational states of a microtome. See, e.g., page 8 at lines 29-35.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights