US 7016110

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number, including any litigation/docket activity.

Summary — US Patent No. 7,016,110 B2

Note on scope: I searched for this specific number. I did not find any CAFC or district‑court docket activity for US 7,016,110. I did find scattered unrelated hits on the bare string "7016110" (e.g., a Japanese patent number 特許第7016110号, a Lithuanian registry notice number) — these are different identifiers and are excluded per your instruction. Where I lack authoritative data (exact verbatim claim text), I say so explicitly.

Bibliographic data (per Google Patents and the EPO/PCT family)

Inventorship uncertainty: the granted US patent records only Marc Jan René Leblans as inventor, but the WO publication (WO 01/67154) and the USPTO assignment record both list two inventors — Marc Jan René Leblans and Philip Arthur Van Doninck. The two Google Patents scrapes are inconsistent on this point, so I flag it rather than resolve it.

Abstract (as published)

The apparatus for automatically focusing an image in a microscope onto an object plane includes an optical system configured to form an optical image of a sample plane to be observed, an autofocusing detection system, and a focus correction system. The autofocusing system includes an autofocusing light beam source; a detection system lens for directing autofocusing light beams to an autofocusing detection device; and an autofocusing detection device for determining the amount of displacement of the image of the object plane from a desired focused reference plane. The focusing correction system includes a feedback controller and focus adjusting device for automatically adjusting the distance between an objective lens and the sample plane. A related method of automatically focusing an image of an object plane in a microscope.

Plain‑language overview

Core idea. Rather than the conventional "take an image → compute a focus metric (entropy, contrast, spatial frequency) → move → repeat" approach, the patent describes directly measuring how far the microscope is out of focus by sensing the displacement of a reflected autofocusing beam, then feeding that displacement to a closed‑loop focus corrector. This is a "position‑sensing" autofocus, not an "image‑content analysis" autofocus. An autofocus beam at one wavelength is injected through a beamsplitter, reflected off the sample plane, and imaged onto a detector whose reading encodes the defocus distance (d3), which maps to the image‑plane displacement (d2).

Independent claims — plain‑language overview

I could not retrieve the verbatim claim set for US 7,016,110 from my searches, so the mapping below is inferred from the patent's own SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION, which tracks the independent claims closely. There appear to be roughly six independent claims falling into three families:

1. Microscope apparatus (unfolded‑axis / probe‑arm aspect). A microscope for viewing an object plane, with lenses mounted along a main optical axis carried on a probe arm, a support for the object/sample plane, and an optical output device forming an image on an image plane. The key limitation is that the main optical axis is unfolded and lies substantially in a single plane — the elongated configuration used to isolate the optics from stage vibration and to distance the viewer from hazardous samples (FIGS. 11–12).

2. Autofocusing system – single sensor. An imaging system that images the object plane using an illumination beam, plus an autofocusing detection system using an autofocusing beam of a different wavelength reflected off the object plane; a detection‑system lens relays the reflected beam to a detection device having at least one sensor; a focus‑correction system (feedback controller + focus adjuster, e.g., a piezo‑positioner) automatically adjusts the objective‑to‑object distance.

3. Autofocusing system – iris + light detector. Same imaging/autofocus architecture, but the detection device is an iris plus a light detector: the iris passes part of the reflected beam through its aperture, and the detector measures transmitted intensity to determine how far the image is displaced from the desired focus reference surface (FIGS. 3A–3B, 4A–4D; includes beam‑ratio normalization using a second detector in FIG. 4D).

4. Autofocusing system – multiple sensors. Same architecture but the detection device uses a plurality of light sensors (e.g., diode pairs with a deflecting prism in FIGS. 5–7, or a cylindrical lens + quad photodiode in FIG. 8), and the focus displacement is derived by comparing intensities across the sensors.

5. Method – iris‑based. Generating an autofocusing beam, directing it at the object plane, reflecting it back, relaying it to a detection system, and sensing it with a light detector; the sensing step includes passing the beam at least partially through an iris aperture and measuring transmitted intensity to determine image‑plane displacement, then focusing the object plane.

6. Method – multi‑detector‑based. Same steps but sensing with a plurality of light detectors and comparing the detected light intensities to determine the displacement and correct focus.

Uncertainties / caveats

• No CAFC or district‑court litigation found for this patent number in my searches; I cannot affirmatively rule litigation out, but no docket or opinion surfaced. (Note that the patent expired/fee‑related status as of the 2021 adjusted expiration makes active enforcement unlikely.)
• Verbatim claims not independently verified. The claim counts and groupings above derive from the patent's summary section, not from the granted claim set.
• Inventor discrepancy between the granted US patent (Leblans alone) and the WO/assignment records (Leblans + Van Doninck).
• Current assignee ("Janssen Infectious Diseases Diagnostics BVBA") comes from Google Patents' automated reassignment data; Google itself notes listed assignees may be inaccurate.

Primary sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7016110/en and https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030142398A1/en ; WO 01/67154 A3 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/66/dc/32/f052a19be806ce/WO2001067154A3.pdf); EP 1264205 B1 / DE 60116268 T2 family listing (EPO).

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 7016110 on patent litigation databases.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me try more specific litigation-focused sources.

Search Results: Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,016,110

Based on my searches of patent-litigation resources (Unified Patents litigation portal, CourtListener, PACER-indexed dockets, PTAB records, and general web sources), I did not find any litigation specifically involving U.S. Patent No. 7,016,110.

What I Found

No litigation hits. None of my searches returned a district court action, ITC investigation, CAFC appeal, or PTAB proceeding naming U.S. Patent No. 7,016,110 ("Microscope suitable for high-throughput screening having an autofocusing apparatus") as an asserted or challenged patent.

Why This Is Plausible (Patent Status)

The patent record is consistent with there being no litigation:

• Current assignee: Janssen Infectious Diseases Diagnostics BVBA (originally Tibotec BVBA) — a large life-sciences/diagnostics entity, not a patent-assertion (NPE) plaintiff.
• Legal status: Expired – Fee Related, with an adjusted expiration of 2021-07-13. The patent term has lapsed, which removes the economic incentive to litigate and makes any remaining action unlikely.
• Subject matter: High-throughput screening microscope/autofocus apparatus — the patent predates the recent HTS/autofocus litigation activity, and no asserted claims appear in the databases consulted.

Important Distinctions (Do NOT Confuse These)

Several of my searches surfaced patents with similar but different numbers. I am explicitly flagging these so they are not mistaken for 7,016,110:

• U.S. Patent No. 7,113,110 (Eclipse IP LLC "automated notification" patent) — a different patent that appeared under the label "'110 patent" in a Comcast declaratory judgment matter. Not 7,016,110.
• The "'110 patent" in TEK Global S.R.L. v. Sealant Systems International, Inc. (N.D. Cal.; Fed. Cir.) — tire-repair technology; a different '110 patent. Not 7,016,110.
• Japanese Patent No. 7016110 — an unrelated Japanese patent. Not the U.S. patent.
• Finneman's "Promptu v. Comcast" and "Hickory IP LLC v. Sharp NEC" hits involved entirely different patent numbers.

Limitation / Caveat

My search coverage is not guaranteed exhaustive. Litigation databases such as Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, and PACER are the authoritative sources for exhaustive district court and CAFC docketing; my web-based queries may not surface every case, particularly older, settled, or sealed matters. Given the patent's lapsed status and its ownership by a large operating entity, however, the absence of results is a strong indication that no known litigation exists for U.S. Patent No. 7,016,110. To be fully certain, a paid Docket Navigator or Lex Machina query on the exact number is recommended.

Conclusion: To the best of the evidence available, there is no known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,016,110.

AIA Trial Proceedings — US Patent 7,016,110

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0 (zero). The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings for US 7,016,110, and independent web searching surfaced none either — so the breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied. Defensive posture: there is no PTAB-based invalidity shield to inherit and no PTAB-based estoppel to worry about. Nothing about this patent has been tested at the Board, so a defendant must build its own invalidity case from scratch — but it also faces no adverse FWD and no prior petitioner's record working against it.

Basis and caveat. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied with this task (USPTO ODP, most recent ingest) is the canonical source and it is empty for this patent. I ran targeted web searches for the patent number, the patent owner (Tibotec BVBA / Janssen), and IPR-specific terms; none returned a docketed PTAB proceeding. I could not reach PTAB E2E or CourtListener directly to double-check, so treat the zero count as consistent across all sources I could reach rather than as a page-by-page E2E confirmation. If a petition was filed in the last few weeks, ODP's ingest lag is the one place it could hide — a live PTAB E2E search on the patent number is the definitive check before you rely on this.

Watch out for a search false positive

Patent number 7016110 is also a Japanese patent (特許第7016110号, JP 7016110, a Still's-disease/sepsis biomarker held by Nagasaki University, granted 2022-01-27). It is entirely unrelated to the US patent at issue. Any search for "7016110" that surfaces a 2022-01-27 grant date or a biomarker claim is hitting the JPO number, not US 7,016,110.

Per-proceeding detail

No proceedings to detail. I will not manufacture proceeding numbers, petitioner names, or panel rosters for proceedings that do not appear in the record. Everything below in the template (filed date, status, panel, grounds, institution decision, FWD, settlement, appeal, defensive value) is inapplicable — there is no docket.

Strategic summary

Claim status: entirely UNTESTED. Because no AIA trial has ever been instituted, no claim of US 7,016,110 has been canceled, confirmed, or even construed by the Board. There is likewise no Federal Circuit disposition, no IPR certificate, and no statutory disclaimer arising out of a PTAB case. If you are being asserted against, every claim the patent owner puts in play is live as a matter of PTAB history — the patent has not been narrowed one inch through the AIA trial route. (I cannot enumerate the surviving claims because the authoritative full text provided for this analysis does not include the claim listing; pull the claim set directly from the patent or from PatentCenter before drafting anything claim-specific.)

Estoppel landscape: clean slate. Because there are no petitioners, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel running against anyone, and no privity chain to inherit. Any defendant today can raise any § 102/§ 103/§ 112 ground, on any reference, without worrying that a prior petitioner already litigated and lost it. Symmetrically, that also means you get no benefit from a prior petitioner's work product and no pre-built record of the patent owner's validity positions.

Pattern signals: no pattern. There is no repeat petitioner, no serial-IPR campaign, no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or otherwise) with this patent in a portfolio challenge, and no evidence that the patent owner has been litigating it hard enough to attract petitions. For context on why: the patent is expired — fee-related, adjusted expiration 2021-07-13 (priority 2000-03-08, filed 2001-03-08, granted 2006-03-21, current assignee Janssen Infectious Diseases Diagnostics BVBA). A long-expired, never-asserted-in-an-IPR patent is precisely the profile that generates zero PTAB activity. The absence of IPRs here is not the "well-asserted patent that hasn't been attacked yet" signal — it is the "this patent is not being enforced" signal.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm on PTAB E2E before you rely on the zero count. Search the patent number in PTAB E2E / PatentCenter "Proceedings" tab. That is the authoritative live check; the ODP-derived list here is empty but ODP ingest lags.
2. If you are a defendant and thinking about an IPR — check the calendar first. The patent's term is over: the record shows an adjusted expiration of 2021-07-13. An expired patent cannot be infringed prospectively, and damages exposure is limited to the pre-expiration period. Before spending IPR money, model whether the assertion is even viable, and whether a § 285/§ 101 or laches/statute-of-limitations posture is cheaper than an AIA trial.
3. If a demand letter cites this patent, there is no FWD to point to and no canceled claim to rely on. Your invalidity case is unbuilt. Start from the prosecution history and the German prior art that the patent's own specification identifies as the closest known approach — Offenlegungsschrift DE 34 46 727 and DE 33 28 821, which the patent describes as disclosing autofocus devices using two light sources and intensity-variation signals, and which the patent distinguishes on the ground that the autofocusing beam path in the prior art traverses many optical elements and at least two beam splitters, causing delay. Those are the natural starting references for any § 103 challenge to the "minimized autofocus light path" / unfolded-axis claims.
4. Don't conflate families. The EP member EP 1 264 205 B1 (granted 2005-12-28) is a separate instrument; EPO opposition/appeal history there is not a PTAB proceeding and is not covered by this analysis. Any European outcome would be relevant only if you are handling the parallel EP right.

Sources: USPTO ODP "PTAB proceedings on file" structured block (empty, canonical); Google Patents US7016110B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US7016110/en (bibliographic data, expiration status, and the DE 34 46 727 / DE 33 28 821 prior-art discussion quoted above). No PTAB FWD, no PTAB E2E docket entry, and no CAFC opinion exists to link for this patent.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 7016110. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the specific recorded assignment documents and the legal events pages.

Based on the sources I was able to retrieve, here is the ownership reconstruction. I have to lead with an important data limit: I could not retrieve the USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame numbers or the recorded correspondent for this patent from my available searches. What I do have is the Google Patents legal-events reassignment record (which mirrors the Assignment Center's underlying record) plus corporate-history sources. I flag every place where a value is inferred rather than observed.

Inventors

Reconciliation of the earlier flagged discrepancy: The prior "Patent summary" section flagged a conflict — the granted US front page reportedly names only Leblans, while WO 01/67154 and the USPTO assignment record name two inventors. The assignment record independently listed in Google's legal events confirms two assignors, Van Doninck and Leblans, so the two‑inventor version is the better supported one; the single‑inventor listing on the granted US front page (if accurate) appears to be an omission rather than the substantive record. Both inventors assigning simultaneously to the same employer is the ordinary employee‑invention pattern.

Unusual patterns: None identifiable. Both inventors assigned to the employer on the same date (2002‑12‑23), and I found no evidence of either inventor departing within 12 months of filing. No fire‑sale precursor.

Original assignee

Tibotec BVBA (Mechelen, Belgium) — the entity named on the issued patent and the assignee of the 2002 assignment.

• Line of business: Belgian infectious‑disease company founded 1994 (as a CRO that evolved into drug discovery and HIV diagnostics). After the March 2001 merger of Virco Group NV and Tibotec Group NV it operated as Tibotec‑Virco, a leader in HIV viral‑load testing/diagnostics and antiretroviral discovery. The patent's own description (affinity‑binding assays, particulate matter/cells suspended in fluid, multi‑well microtiter plates) is consistent with that diagnostics/HT‑screening context.
• Shipped a product embodying the claims? Unclear. Tibotec‑Virco demonstrably sold HIV diagnostic testing products, and the patent is an HTS imaging/autofocus platform, but I found no evidence of a commercially shipped microscope product reading on these claims. I do not assert a product embodiment.
• Current status: Operating (as a J&J subsidiary). Tibotec was acquired by Johnson & Johnson in April 2002 (~$320M cash and debt; J&J booked a ~$145M in‑process R&D write‑off). It was folded into the Janssen Pharmaceuticals division, renamed Janssen Therapeutics in June 2011. Google Patents lists the current assignee as Janssen Infectious Diseases Diagnostics BVBA, which the sources describe as the former Tibotec BVBA. This is a corporate re‑organization / change‑of‑name lineage, not a sale to a third party.

Assignment timeline

Caveat: reel/frame numbers were not retrievable from my available sources and are deliberately omitted rather than guessed. Correspondent of record was likewise not retrievable.

2002‑12‑23 (recorded) — execution date not retrievable from sources consulted

• Reel/Frame: not retrievable
• Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (per Google legal‑events text: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
• Assignor: Philip Arthur Van Doninck and Marc Jan René Leblans (joint inventors)
• Assignee: Tibotec BVBA
• Correspondent: not retrievable
• Context: Original inventor‑to‑employer assignment (routine employee invention assignment), recorded around entry of the PCT national stage.

No later recorded assignment surfaced. Every search for a post‑issuance or later‑recorded conveyance (2006 grant, 2011 rename, dissolution events) returned nothing on this patent number. The Google legal‑events feed shows the assignee transition to "Janssen Infectious Diseases Diagnostics BVBA" only as current‑assignee metadata, not as a separately observed reel/frame entry. The 2021‑07‑13 adjusted expiration is a term adjustment, not a transfer.

If the Assignment Center shows no further records — which is the state of the evidence here — the finding is that the patent has remained with the original assignee's corporate successor continuously since 2002. I recommend one direct query at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html searching the patent number, to capture the reel/frame and correspondent that my tools could not reach.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7016110
    2000 : Priority application filed
    2001 : PCT application filed
    2002 : Inventors assign to Tibotec BVBA
         : Johnson and Johnson acquires Tibotec
    2006 : US patent granted
    2011 : Tibotec renamed Janssen Therapeutics
    2021 : Patent term expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No operating‑company‑to‑licensing‑LLC transfer appears in any record. The only recorded assignee is Tibotec BVBA, an operating pharma/diagnostics company, and the current holder is a J&J subsidiary.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Tibotec BVBA / Janssen Infectious Diseases Diagnostics BVBA do not match any entity on the reference NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi‑LAN/Mosaid‑Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, etc.), and no such entity appears at any link.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not determinable. No correspondent data was retrievable, so recurrence cannot be assessed either way. This is a data gap, not a negative finding. Note the recorded Tibotec‑Virco patent‑department correspondent seen in the related family (e.g., Frank F.R. Daelemans, Tibotec‑Virco / J&J Patent Law Dept, Mechelen) — but that is from sibling EP filings, not from a verified US 7016110 assignment record, so I do not treat it as a finding on this chain.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. At most one recorded assignment; no chain of LLCs, no transfers in <24 months.

5. Pre‑litigation transfer — not present. No litigation was found naming this patent (consistent with the earlier litigation section), and no transfer occurred near any assertable date.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — not present. Tibotec was acquired by J&J in April 2002; it was not a bankrupt seller, and no proceeding sold this patent.

7. Privateering — not present. No operating‑company‑to‑NPE transfer and no assertion against competitors; the patent stayed inside the corporate family.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain terminates at an operating J&J subsidiary, not at RPX/AST/LOT/Unified/OIN.

Verdict

Insufficient data — in substance an operating‑company‑held, non‑asserting patent.

Justification: the only ownership event I can evidence is the original inventor‑to‑employer assignment to Tibotec BVBA recorded 2002‑12‑23, with no subsequent recorded transfer (no reel/frame for anything later surfaced), so the chain runs inventors → Tibotec BVBA → its J&J successor (Janssen Infectious Diseases Diagnostics BVBA). Every NPE signal is either affirmatively absent or a data gap, and none is present on positive evidence; a diagnostic/pharma operating company is not an NPE profile. The "Insufficient data" label reflects that I could not retrieve reel/frame or correspondent and that only the original assignment is on record — not any suggestion of an NPE. Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 7016110) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

Cross‑reference note / potential contradiction to flag: the earlier "Patent summary" and "Litigation summary" sections are consistent with this one (no litigation; operating‑company owner). The one thing to keep straight is your own instruction not to auto‑correct identifiers: "Janssen Infectious Diseases Diagnostics BVBA" and "Janssen Diagnostics BVBA" both appear in sources for the Tibotec‑BVBA successor entity, and Japanese Patent No. 7016110 (a Still's disease/sepsis biomarker patent) is a completely different patent that surfaces on the bare string — it is excluded here.

I'll research the prior art references cited for US 7,016,110, starting with the patent's own citation records.

Let me retrieve the patent's front-page citation list and the other prior-art references from the PCT search report.

I hit the tool-call limit before I could pull the exact USPTO front‑page "References Cited" list verbatim, so I'm grounding this on the citation records I did retrieve — principally the International Search Report for the parent PCT (PCT/EP01/02807 → WO 01/67154 A3), which IS the search whose citations carried into US 7,016,110, plus the references named in the patent's own background section. I flag below exactly where the record is thin.

Prior Art Cited for US 7,016,110 B2

Important framing note

US 7,016,110 did not receive a fresh examiner novelty search of its own at issuance — it is the national-stage entry of PCT/EP01/02807 (WO 01/67154 A3). The novelty citations of record for this family are therefore the ones from the international search report, which categorized four patent documents as category "X" (particularly relevant; potentially anticipatory) against claims 1–55 (the full claim set as filed):

"| X | DE 34 46 727 A (ZEISS CARL FA) 3 July 1986 … cited in the application page 6, line 12 – page 11, line 5; figures 1A–2C | 1–55 |
| X | DE 33 28 821 A (ZEISS CARL FA) 28 February 1985 … cited in the application page 8, line 4 – page 12, line 9; figures 1–5 | 1–55 |
| X | US 5 530 237 A (SATO MANABU ET AL) 25 June 1996 … column 4, line 19 – column 5, line 31; figure 1 | 1–55 |
| X | GB 2 076 176 A (VICKERS LTD) 25 November 1981 …"
— ISR, WO 01/67154 A3 (via patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/66/dc/32/f052a19be806ce/WO2001067154A3.pdf)

Only two of these — DE 34 46 727 and DE 33 28 821 — were expressly acknowledged in the patent's own "Description of the Related Art" ("Several autofocus position sensing methods and apparatuses are known, for example from Offenlegungsschrift DE 34 46 727 and DE 33 28 821…").

The cited prior-art references

(Note on dates: the DE documents show a priority date of 1983‑08‑10 in the DE 3828381 family table, but separate laid-open publication dates of 1985‑02‑28 (DE 33 28 821) and 1986‑07‑03 (DE 34 46 727). The internal inconsistency in the record (a 1984-series document carrying a 1983 priority) is a real feature of these Zeiss filings — DE 34 46 727 appears to be a later filing claiming/reflecting the 1983-08-10 subject matter. I flag this rather than resolve it.)

Per-reference analysis

1. DE 34 46 727 A (Carl Zeiss) — Autofokuseinrichtung für Mikroskope

• Full citation: German Offenlegungsschrift DE 34 46 727 A1, applicant Fa. Carl Zeiss, Heidenheim; laid-open 3 July 1986; granted as DE 34 46 727 C2 on 4 Dec 1986. Title: Autofokuseinrichtung für Mikroskope ("Autofocus device for microscopes").
• Brief description: An autofocus device for a microscope in which two separate light sources project autofocus beams that are reflected off the specimen, and variations in light intensity originating from those two beams provide the focus-error signal used for focus adjustment. The autofocus light travels through a substantial optical train of lenses and at least two beamsplitters. This is the classic "double-beam / oscillating-light-spot" microscope autofocus. (This characterization is taken directly from the applicant's own description of the reference at EP 1 264 205 B1 [0007]: "These German documents disclose an autofocus device for a microscope wherein variations in light intensity originating from two separate light sources provide a signal for focus adjustment … The autofocusing light beams travel along a substantial large part including several optical elements, such as a plurality of lenses and at least two beam splitters.")
• §102 relevance: The ISR tagged this X against claims 1–55, i.e., the examiner treated it as disclosing the core position-sensing autofocus architecture — reflected autofocus beam → beamsplitter → detection → focus adjustment — that recurs throughout the patent's independent claims. Under §102 it is most directly aimed at the position-sensing autofocus apparatus/method families (the FIG. 1–2 general architecture and the single-/multi-sensor system claims). The applicant's own answer to this reference was that it uses a more complex, longer autofocus light path (multiple lenses + ≥2 beamsplitters), which is precisely the drawback the '110 patent says it improves upon.

2. DE 33 28 821 A (Carl Zeiss) — companion Zeiss autofocus disclosure

• Full citation: German Offenlegungsschrift DE 33 28 821 A1, applicant Fa. Carl Zeiss; laid-open 28 Feb 1985; granted as DE 33 28 821 C2 on 2 Oct 1986. Same technical family as DE 34 46 727 (both dated to the 1983-08-10 subject matter).
• Brief description: Companion Zeiss autofocus device for microscopes, again using intensity variation from two light sources to generate a focus-adjustment signal; the ISR pointed to page 8, line 4 – page 12, line 9 and figures 1–5.
• §102 relevance: ISR category X against claims 1–55. Cumulatively with DE 34 46 727, it covers the "reflect a probe beam off the specimen and detect the resulting intensity/displacement to drive focus correction" concept in the position-sensing claim families. Both Zeiss documents were expressly conceded by the applicant as known prior art in the background section.

3. US 5,530,237 A (Sato, Manabu et al.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,530,237, "Apparatus for focusing on transparent objects," inventors Sato, Manabu et al.; granted 25 June 1996. (JP counterpart JP 7-072378 A, published 17 Mar 1995.)
• Brief description: A focus-error detection apparatus in which a light beam is passed through one half of the pupil of an imaging optical system and imaged on the specimen; the reflected beam is returned through the other half of the pupil and is split by a light-dividing means into two reflected beams received by two separate light-receiving members (CCDs). A light-intercepting member disposed between conjugate planes suppresses the reflection from the back surface of a transparent object (e.g., glass substrate). Control means move the object and imaging optics relative to each other based on the outputs of the two light-receiving members to effect focusing. The ISR pointed to column 4, line 19 – column 5, line 31 and figure 1.
• §102 relevance: This is the closest structural analogue to the '110 patent's multi-sensor / pupil-split detection family (FIGS. 5–8 here: prism-split diode pairs and cylindrical-lens quad photodiode), where the focus displacement is derived by comparing intensities across multiple detectors. ISR category X against claims 1–55. Sato teaches exactly the "compare the light intensities detected by a plurality of light detectors to determine the displacement" step that appears in the '110 patent's multi-detector method claim. Distinguishing features of the '110 patent are the specific beam-splitting/detector geometries and the HTS/fluorescence context.

4. GB 2 076 176 A (Vickers Ltd)

• Full citation: U.K. Patent Application GB 2 076 176 A, applicant Vickers Ltd; published 25 Nov 1981.
• Brief description: A microscope/optical-instrument autofocus disclosure from Vickers (the ISR citation was truncated at "page…", so I could not capture the pinpoint passage). Vickers Ltd in this era was active in image-analysis and microscope autofocus instrumentation; a 1981 GB application in this class typically describes a reflected probe-beam focus sensor with relative movement of objective and specimen driven from the sensed signal.
• §102 relevance: ISR category X against claims 1–55. Given its 1981 date, it is the earliest of the four and is relevant as an anticipatory-teaching candidate against the broadest position-sensing apparatus/method claims. Caveat: because my retrieval of the GB document's cited passage was cut off, I cannot be more specific than "reflected-beam autofocus with feedback focus adjustment," and I will not fabricate a narrower mapping.

Non-patent literature cited in the background

The patent's "Description of the Related Art" expressly relies on two journal articles as the state of the image-content-analysis art that it distinguishes itself from (not prior art that anticipates its claims):

• Groen FCA, Young IT, Ligthart G, "A comparison of different focus functions for use in autofocus algorithms," Cytometry 6:81–91 (1985) — compared 11 autofocus functions in brightfield on an electron-microscope grid and a metaphase spread; concluded two gradient functions + intensity variance performed best; most important limitation is speed.
• Vollath D, "Automatic Focusing by Correlative Methods," J. Microsc. 147:279–288 (1987) — tested an autocorrelation function in brightfield on a paralytic steel specimen.

These two are cited as §102-adjacent background for the "measure the image and compute a focus metric" approach, which the '110 patent positions as the slow prior art; they do not, on their face, disclose the reflected-probe-beam position-sensing claims.

What is NOT prior art (do not count these)

• US 6,974,938 B1 ("Microscope having a stable autofocusing apparatus," Tibotec BVBA) — appears under Google Patents "Cited By" for US 7,016,110, but it is a family member sharing the same 2000‑03‑08 priority date and the same assignee. It is a continuation/divisional sibling, not §102 prior art.
• US 2003/0142398 A1 — this is US 7,016,110's own pre-grant publication.
• The "Cited By (10)" list (e.g., US 7,369,220; US 7,977,616; US 9,804,029; WO 2005/124321; WO 2007/080952; WO 2015/133176) is later art citing the '110 patent — relevant to infringement/validity-by-later-art analysis, not anticipation of '110.
• US 5,930,872 / US 5,790,710 / WO 96/001438 (Jeffrey H. Price, "Autofocus system for scanning microscopy") appear in the citation lists of other patents (DE 3 828 381 A1) in my results, not in the '110 family's own citation record as retrieved. I mention them because they are contextually central to scanning-microscopy autofocus, but I am not attributing them as citations of US 7,016,110.

Confidence and limitations

1. Confidence: high that DE 34 46 727, DE 33 28 821, US 5,530,237, and GB 2 076 176 are the four novelty ("X") references of record for this family — this comes straight from the ISR text I retrieved.
2. Confidence: medium on the DE priority/publication-date reconciliation (the 1983-08-10 priority vs. 1985/1986 laid-open dates) — the source tables disagree; I flagged rather than resolved.
3. Gap: I could not retrieve the USPTO front page ("References Cited") of US 7,016,110 itself in this session, so if the US examiner added any references beyond the ISR (common practice), they are not reflected above. A definitive §102 mapping should be run against the granted claim set and the USPTO PatentCenter "References Cited" tab.
4. Gap: the GB 2 076 176 cited passage was truncated; I deliberately did not invent a pinpoint.
5. Mapping caveat: The ISR's "relevant to claims 1–55" refers to the PCT application's claim numbering. The granted US claim set may differ (per the earlier summary, ~6 independent claims in three families). The claim-family targeting above is my inference; it should be confirmed against the verbatim granted claims, which I have not independently verified.

Sources: WO 01/67154 A3 ISR (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/66/dc/32/f052a19be806ce/WO2001067154A3.pdf); EP 1 264 205 B1 (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fe/8f/1b/f6c1faf6db7d67/EP1264205B1.pdf); US 5,530,237 (patents.google.com/patent/US5530237); DE 3 828 381 A1 citation table (patents.google.com/patent/DE3828381A1); https://patents.google.com/patent/US7016110/en.

I'll ground this analysis in the prior-art references identified for this patent. Let me search for the key references.

I now have the actual claim set (via the Canadian counterpart) and the key prior art. Let me pull the search-report reference list and confirm dates for the secondary references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,016,110 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note on inputs. Per instruction I anchored this to the prior-art material associated with this page: (i) the two Offenlegungsschriften the patent's own Background names as the closest known approach — DE 34 46 727 and DE 33 28 821; (ii) the International Search Report for PCT/EP01/02807 (published with WO 01/67154 A3), which rated both of those documents category "X" against claims 1–55; and (iii) the surrounding art the search surfaced (US 4,737,022, US 4,958,920, US 4,687,913, DE 32 19 503, DE 41 33 788, DE 35 27 322, DE 24 47 398) together with the well-known astigmatic quad-photodiode method. Where I could not verify something (e.g., a specific reference teaching the elongated "probe arm"), I say so.

0. Two corrections to the earlier sections — please read first

0.1 Claim set — now verified (upgrades an earlier "unverified" flag).
The earlier Patent summary section stated that the verbatim claims could not be retrieved and that the six independent-claim groupings were "inferred from the SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION." That inference can now be upgraded to verified against the WO/CA counterpart. The Canadian sibling CA 2,400,841 A1 (same PCT, same title) reproduces the claim set, and the ISR recites claim numbers up to 55. Reconciling these:

So there are six independent claims and 55 claims total, corroborating the earlier estimate. Caveat: the US grant text may differ in minor wording from CA/WO; pull the US claim listing from PatentCenter before filing anything claim-chart-specific.

0.2 The "7" in the Google Patents scrape is not a claim count. It appears in the keyword-occurrence block, not a claim field. Do not use it.

0.3 The single most important fact on this page for § 103 is the ISR. The International Search Report rated both DE 34 46 727 and DE 33 28 821 "X" against all claims 1–55:

| X | DE 34 46 727 A (ZEISS CARL FA) 3 July 1986 … page 6, line 12 – page 11, line 5; figures 1A–2C | 1–55 |
| X | DE 33 28 821 A (ZEISS CARL FA) 28 February 1985 … page 8, line 4 – page 12, line 9; figures 1–5 | … |
— https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/66/dc/32/f052a19be806ce/WO2001067154A3.pdf

"X" means taken alone the document is of particular relevance (anticipation or obviousness). That is the examiner-of-record's own view that each of the two Zeiss documents independently reaches every claim. A § 103 case built on them is therefore not speculative — it is the case the ISA already made.

1. Legal standard applied

The priority date is 2000-03-08; the § 103 analysis uses pre-AIA law (the application was filed 2001-03-08 and never subjected to AIA first-inventor-to-file). The framework is Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and MPEP §§ 2141–2144. Two KSR principles drive most of this analysis:

• § 2144.09 / common ownership + same field. Combining references that (a) come from the same field, (b) address the same problem, and (c) are commonly owned is presumed motivated. Here both primary references are Carl Zeiss autofocus patents for microscopes.
• § 2144.07 / known technique from another field. "A technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way" → obvious. This is the hook for the quad-photodiode astigmatic detector borrowed from optical-disk drives.

Also relevant: the applicant's own admissions in the Background (MPEP § 2144.03 / § 2129). The specification concedes that DE 34 46 727 and DE 33 28 821 "disclose an autofocus device for a microscope wherein variations in light intensity originating from two separate light sources provide a signal for focus adjustment," that such methods are "in particular useful for flat samples," and that the only stated defect is that the prior-art autofocus beam path "travel[s] along a substantial large part including several optical elements… and at least two beam splitters," causing "delay." That concession frames the invention as an optimization of a known autofocus architecture — classic § 103 territory.

2. Prior-art inventory (the "Prior Art" material on this page)

Deliberately excluded as post-dated (not § 102(b) art for this patent): EP 1 333 304 / US 6,879,440 (Leica, filed 2002-02-02; publ. 2003-09-18) and US 2003/0085334 A1 (Kodak). Both are useful only as evidence of what a PHOSITA knew and of the ordinary skill level; they cannot be relied on as anticipating art. Flagging this because a careless searcher will surface them.

3. § 103 roadmap — claim family → combination

4. Element-by-element mapping and the specific combinations

4.1 Combination A — PA-1 (DE 34 46 727 / US 4,737,022) alone or + PA-3

This is the combination the ISA already endorsed. Walk the elements of claim 11:

Claim 25's "different wavelengths" limitation is squarely disclosed: IR auxiliary beam vs. visible observation beam — the whole point of the dichromatic mirrors in PA-1.

Why a PHOSITA would combine PA-1 with PA-3 (or simply take PA-1 alone): same field, same problem, same assignee (Zeiss), and PA-3 is the express survey of PA-1's own system. Motivation = 1 (the KSR "same field/same problem" presumption).

4.2 Combination B — PA-1 + PA-4 (DE 34 46 727 + DE 32 19 503) → claims 28–35, 42–48

Claim 28 requires the detection device to be "an iris and a light detector… measuring the intensity of the portion … that passes through the aperture of the iris."

• PA-1 already gets you a lens → aperture (diaphragm 24/31) → detector 29; the only thing missing is characterizing the detector as measuring transmitted-intensity rather than a knife-edge signal.
• PA-4 supplies exactly that: a measuring beam that "passes a Blende," is partly split off, and after a slit diaphragm lands on a Differenzdiode, with the spot migrating across the diode(s) on defocus. PA-4 also supplies the auxiliary beam-splitter that splits off part of the measuring beam — i.e., claim 31's "auxiliary beam splitter… between the detection system lens and the iris… configured to reflect a fraction of the reflected autofocusing light beam to the auxiliary light detector," and claim 46's method counterpart.
• Claim 35 / claim 28 ("the distance… is a function of the light intensity measured by the light detector") is PA-4's stated principle verbatim.

Motivation to combine: Both are autofocus-by-pupil/spot-displacement in a microscope; both aim to convert a reflected auxiliary beam into a linear, direction-sensitive focus-error signal. Substituting a slit/iris + photodiode readout for PA-1's knife-edge/diaphragm readout, or vice versa, is the substitution of one art-recognized focus-error detection scheme for another with a predictable result — KSR at 417 ("a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions").

4.3 Combination C — PA-2 alone, or PA-2 + PA-8 → claims 36–41 and 49–55

Claim 36 requires "a plurality of light sensors" measuring intensity "in order to detect the distance" of image-plane displacement; claim 49 requires comparing the light intensities across the plurality of detectors.

• PA-2 discloses precisely this: two alternately/independently switched sources; the returning light is directed onto first and second detectors in a conjugate plane; the difference of the detected intensities gives the focus error. That reads on claim 49's "comparing the light intensities of the reflected autofocusing light beam detected by the light detectors" almost literally.
• Claims 19–20 / 37 / 50–51 (two diode pairs; first pair on one side of the optical axis, second pair on the other; intensity changing with object–objective distance) are met by PA-2's two-detector arrangement combined with PA-4 (diodes straddling the optical axis, spot migrating from diode to diode) or PA-6 (detector field of several individual diodes with a pupil-induced parallax).
• Claims 21–22 / 38–39 / 52–53 (cylindrical lens; quad photodiode with four distinct diode segments) are met by PA-8. This is the strongest "known technique from another field" argument in the patent: the astigmatic quad-cell detector was standard in CD/DVD pickup heads long before 2000, and it solves exactly the same problem (produce a fast, direction-sensitive, closed-loop-compatible focus error signal) with exactly the same structure (astigmatic lens + 4-quadrant photodiode + S-curve signal). The later microscopy literature expressly describes the transplant as mimicking the CD/DVD pickup (Hsu et al. 2009). A PHOSITA seeking to shorten the autofocus optical path — the very stated object of the invention — would look to the compact, single-beam astigmatic detector of consumer optical drives. Motivation, reasonable expectation of success, and predictable result all present.
• Claim 55's "reference signal representative of the amount of displacement" is standard servo practice and is disclosed by PA-4's differential-diode signal.

4.4 Combination D — PA-1 + PA-2 (the two Zeiss references together)

Because both primary references are Carl Zeiss autofocus patents in the same field describing the same functional element set (auxiliary source(s) → coupling optics → spot on specimen → detector(s) in a conjugate plane → focus-error signal → motor), combining them is the paradigm KSR same-field/ same-problem case (MPEP § 2144.09). The patent's own Background treats them as a pair ("several autofocus position sensing methods and apparatuses are known, for example from Offenlegungsschrift DE 34 46 727 and DE 33 28 821"), which is itself an admission that a PHOSITA would consult them together.

Combination D covers claims 11–27 and 36–41 (single- and multi-sensor variants) without needing any further reference.

4.5 Combination E — for the unfolded-axis / probe-arm claims (1–10)

This is the weakest leg, and I will not overstate it.

The element that distinguishes claim 1 from an ordinary microscope is functional/structural: lenses on a probe arm extending along a main optical axis that is "unfolded and substantially extends along a single plane." PA-1/PA-3 show a straight (unfolded) incident-light axis with the camera branch taken off by a beam splitter, so the "unfolded, single-plane main axis" limitation is arguably disclosed in substance. The elongated probe arm as an anti-vibration/remote-viewing measure, however, is not something I could verify in a specific reference on this page — I am flagging that gap rather than manufacturing a citation.

What can be argued under § 103 without a specific reference:

1. Mere rearrangement / predictable result. Straight-line ("unfolded") optical benches in microscopy — metallurgical and reflected-light microscopes with a horizontal axis and a 45° mirror at the nosepiece — were conventional; PA-1 itself uses the straight incident-light axis and PA-6/PA-3 show 45°-mirror beam routing. Making the arm longer changes no optical function.
2. The motivation is recited in the specification itself and is a design desideratum, not a discovery: "the elongated design of the microscope permits the mounting of the microscope on a separate table from the table on which a scanning stage is mounted," "vibrations from the motors are typically transmitted to the microscope, resulting in images of low quality," and "the viewer [is] positioned at a substantial distance from the samples… particularly desirable if dealing with samples that involve toxic chemicals." Where the specification recites the objective problem and its acknowledged advantages, the claimed solution is squarely within the "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions" analysis.
3. Reasonable expectation of success. Lengthening a rigid optical bench to move the detector away from a vibration source is the ordinary mechanical solution.

Recommendation: before relying on the claim-1 family in a validity challenge, run a targeted search on remote-head / elongated-column inspection microscopes, horizontal-axis metallurgical microscope bodies, and vibration-isolated microscopy platforms (1980–2000). I did not retrieve one on this page and will not invent one.

5. Motivation to combine — consolidated statement

Even setting aside the ISR's X ratings, the KSR motivation factors are all present and cumulative:

1. Same field of endeavor. PA-1, PA-2, PA-3, PA-4, PA-5, PA-6, PA-9 are all microscope autofocus (IPC G02B 21/24). MPEP § 2141.01(a).
2. Same problem to be solved. Each seeks a fast, direction-sensitive focus-error signal from a reflected auxiliary beam, to close a focus servo loop. The patent itself states the problem it is solving is delay caused by a long autofocus beam path through many elements and ≥2 beam splitters — i.e., a documented optimization problem in the cited art.
3. Common ownership (two of the primary references are Carl Zeiss). MPEP § 2144.09 — a strong presumptive motivation.
4. Known technique from another field (astigmatic quad-cell). MPEP § 2144.07 — the quad-photodiode astigmatic detector of optical-disk drives was a ready, well-understood tool for exactly this problem.
5. Substitution of known equivalents with predictable results. Iris+single detector, differential two-segment diode, knife-edge, skew-beam, and astigmatic quad-cell were all art-recognized ways to encode defocus; the patent simply selects among them per embodiment. KSR at 417, 421 ("when a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform'… the combination is likely to be obvious").
6. Design incentives and market pressure for high-throughput screening. The drive for rapid focusing across multi-well plates (96/384/1536-well, per the specification) was a known commercial pressure, supplying the "reason to improve" the prior art.
7. Applicant's own admissions. The Background's characterization of DE 34 46 727/DE 33 28 821 and its framing of the invention as shortening the autofocus path is an admission of the prior-art architecture.

6. Anticipated counterarguments (and their force)

(a) "Teaching away" via US 4,958,920. PA-3 expressly criticizes active autofocus systems for transmigrated-light objects with cover glasses (the reflection off the cover glass captures the lock). This is the applicant's best argument against Combinations A–C for the transmitted-light/luminescence species. But it is weak because: (i) US 4,958,920 also teaches the fix — use the active system to establish focus and then hand off/combine with a passive contrast search, and store offsets; (ii) the challenged claims are not limited to transmitted light — claim 25/47/54 merely require an illumination beam and image formation; and (iii) the '110 specification itself adopts the very same cover-glass work-around ("the light beam directed at the sample is offset by a certain amount in order to scan (or focus) on a plane inside of the sample"). A reference that discloses a problem and a solution in the same document does not teach away. MPEP § 2145; In re Fulton.

(b) "Unexpected results / secondary considerations." No evidence in the record: no unexpected-result data in the specification beyond generic speed/efficiency assertions; no nexus-bearing commercial success, long-felt-need, or industry-praise evidence surfaced in my searches; no litigation-induced validity findings (consistent with the earlier sections' conclusion that there is no known litigation and no PTAB proceeding for this patent). Without nexus evidence, the secondary-consideration rebuttal is unavailable.

(c) "The prior art required two beam splitters / a long path — the invention shortened it." This is a problem-recognition argument, not an unexpected-result argument. Recognizing the desirability of a shorter autofocus path is not itself inventive where the art already used single-beam astigmatic (PA-8) and single-beam iris/diode (PA-4) detectors. KSR at 421: the "identified, predictable solution" is obvious.

(d) § 102 overlap. Note that the ISR's "X" rating for each of PA-1 and PA-2 against all 55 claims suggests anticipation (§ 102) may be the cleaner attack for the autofocus claim families, with § 103 held in reserve for the claim-1 family (probe arm / unfolded axis) and for the specific quad-cell and prism sub-combinations. If you must choose one theory, plead anticipation for 11–27 and 36–55 and § 103 for 1–10 and 21–22/38–39/52–53.

7. Verdict

Overall: the autofocus substance of US 7,016,110 — which is where 50 of the 55 claims live — is, on the face of the prior-art record on this page, an obvious application of position-sensing autofocus techniques that Carl Zeiss had already published in 1985–1986 and that the ISA rated "X" against every claim. The patent's genuine contribution, if any, appears to narrow to the mechanical packaging (unfolded-axis probe arm for vibration-isolated high-throughput screening), and that limitation is the only place a validity dispute is likely to be won or lost.

8. What to verify before relying on this

1. Pull the granted US claim set from PatentCenter and confirm claims 1–10 track the CA/WO text; my claims 11–55 text comes from the CA sibling.
2. Confirm publication dates (OBD) for DE 32 19 503, DE 41 33 788 and DE 24 47 398 against the public register — I reasoned from filing-year number ranges for those three and flagged them; a date slip past 2000-03-08 would downgrade any of them to § 102(e)/§ 103(c) or non-art.
3. Retrieve the full ISR reference list from WO 01/67154 A3; the scrape I obtained cut off after the first two X-citations, and any further "A/Y" citations there are candidate secondary references I have not evaluated.
4. Targeted search for the elongated-probe-arm element (remote-head inspection microscope columns; horizontal-axis metallurgical bodies; vibration-isolated microscope platforms, 1980–2000) to shore up or concede the claim-1 family.

Sources relied on: US7016110B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US7016110/en ; CA2400841A1 (claim text) — https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2400841A1/en ; WO 01/67154 A3 with International Search Report — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/66/dc/32/f052a19be806ce/WO2001067154A3.pdf ; DE 34 46 727 A1 / DE 3446727 C2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/DE3446727A1/en ; US 4,737,022 and US 4,958,920 — https://patents.justia.com/patent/[4737022](/patent/4737022) and https://patents.google.com/patent/US4958920 ; DE 33 28 821 C2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/DE3328821C2/en ; DE 35 27 322 A1 — https://patents.google.com/patent/DE3527322A1/en ; DE 32 19 503, DE 41 33 788 as reproduced in EP 1 333 304 B1 — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/7c/31/09/6ec8f216009d80/EP1333304B1.pdf ; Hsu et al., Meas. Sci. Technol. 20:045902 (2009) (astigmatic microscopy autofocus, CD/DVD lineage).