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 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that prior art of record Kreidler (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0043250 A1) fails to teach “wherein the release of the latching device from the catch having engaged the catch upon rotation in the certain rotational direction can only be achieved through further continued rotation in the certain rotational direction beyond the holding position, and not through any movement in the opposite rotational direction”. The examiner respectfully disagrees since Kreidler teaches wherein the release (Figs. 5-7) of the latching device (5) from the catch (2) having engaged the catch (2) upon rotation in the certain rotational direction (52) can only be achieved through further continued rotation (Figs 5-7, 52) in the certain rotational direction beyond the holding position (Fig. 5 is considered the holding position and Fig. 7. is the full release of the latch in the rotational direction), and not through any movement in the opposite rotational direction (see directions 52 and 53). Applicants further argues ¶0053 teaches “Tensioning lever 2 is thus moved back into its closed tensioned position shown in FIG. 5 via the stop web 17 by rotating the closing flap 5 farther against arrow 52. This explicitly describes release and re-engagement through reverse rotation”. However the claim states “wherein the release of the latching device from the catch having engaged the catch upon rotation in the certain rotational direction can only be achieved through further continued rotation in the certain rotational direction beyond the holding position, and not through any movement in the opposite rotational direction”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and ¶0053 teaches “ Tensioning lever 2 is thus moved back into its closed tensioned position shown in FIG. 5 via the stop web 17 by rotating the closing flap 5 farther against arrow 52”. The examiner interprets that limitation is claiming that when releasing the latching device from the catch there is not through any movement in the opposite rotational direction. ¶0053 of Kriedler is stating that the lock in returned to the closed state (as shown in Figure 5) after the release of the latching device (Figure 7, see the emphasize portion “moved back into its closed state”). Kreidler further teaches in ¶0052 “By rotating the closing flap 5 farther in the direction of arrow 52, closing flap 5 with its opening 26 or the meshing strip 33 will thus fully unmesh with the tensioning lever 2, as this can be seen in FIG. 7”. The examiner interprets that based on Figures 5-7 and ¶0053 that for the release of the latch is executed by rotating the latch in one direction (arrow 52).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-5 and 8 -15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capelli (WO Patent Publication Number 2018/170522 A1) in view of Kreidler (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0043250 A1).
Capelli teaches, as claimed in claim 1, video glasses (Figs. 1 and 7) for use in microsurgical procedures, comprising: a support device (2) configured to fasten the video glasses (1) to a head of a user, an image display unit (4) for outputting images, a joint (3) with a rotational axis (302), which connects the support device (2) with the image display unit (4) rotationally about the rotational axis (Fig. 7) between an operating position (B), in which the image display unit (4) is arranged in front of the eyes of the user1 and images can be displayed to the user and a rest position (R), in which the image display unit (4) is arranged upwards out of the visual field of the user (Fig. 2), and a locking device (12) comprising a latching device (24) and a catch (recess in 12) arranged to let the latching device (24) upon rotation in a rotational direction (Fig. 7) about the rotational axis engage the catch2 ( recess in 12) in a holding position (Fig. 7 when latch 24 and lock 12 are together) and to release the latching device (24) from the catch (12), and wherein a rotation in the opposite rotational direction beyond the holding position (Fig. 7 when latch 24 and lock 12 are together) is impeded as long as the latching device (24) is engaged in the catch 1(2, Fig. 7), and the latching device (24) has not been released from the catch (2) upon further rotation in the rotational direction3, Capelli fails to teach wherein the release of the latching device from the catch having engaged the catch upon rotation in the certain rotational direction can only be achieved through further continued rotation in the certain rotational direction beyond the holding position, and not through any movement in the opposite rotational direction. In a related art, Kreidler teaches a locking device (1) wherein the release (Figs. 5-7) of the latching device (5) from the catch (2) having engaged the catch (2) upon rotation in the certain rotational direction (52) can only be achieved through further continued rotation (Figs 5-7, 52) in the certain rotational direction beyond the holding position (Fig. 5 is considered the holding position and Fig. 7. is the full release of the latch in the rotational direction), and not through any movement in the opposite rotational direction (see directions 52 and 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to have modified the video glasses, as taught by Capelli, with the latching device, as taught by Kreidler, for the purpose of providing applying extremely strong tensioning forces to close the container cover 46 (¶0055).
Capelli teaches, as claimed in claim 2, wherein the holding position corresponds to the rest position (Figs. 2&7), such that when the latching device (24) engages the catch (2) in the holding position (Fig. 2&7), the image display unit (4) is held stably in the rest position above the eyes and out of the visual field of the user (Fig. 2).
Capelli teaches, as claimed in claim 3 wherein the locking device (12) comprises at least a further holding position (Fig. 7 when latch 24 and lock 12 are together) between the rest position (R) and the operating position (Fig. 1).
Capelli teaches, as claimed in claim 4, wherein the rotational angle from the holding position until release of the latching device from the catch is at least 10° 4 (Figs 1, 2 and 7).
Capelli teaches, as claimed in claim 5, wherein the rotational angle from the holding position until release of the latching device (24) from the catch) is not more than 15° (Figs 1, 2 and 7).
Capelli teaches, as claimed in claim 8, wherein the latching device comprises a pin (the lever 26 is the pin) biased by a spring (29 ) and being rotationally supported (Fig. 7).
Capelli teaches, as claimed in claim 9, wherein the locking device (12) is configured to only impede a rotation in the opposite rotational direction (Fig. 7), a direction from the rest position (R) towards the operating position (B) when the latching device (24) is engaged with.
Capelli teaches, as claimed in claim 10, wherein the latching device (24) comprises a pin rounded at one side (side that engages the catch 12) is configured to let the rounded pin slide off the catch (recess ion 12) upon rotation in the opposite rotational direction.
Capelli teaches, as claimed in claim 11, wherein the catch (12) comprises a notch (the recess at the tip of 12).
Capelli teaches, as claimed in claim 12, wherein the notch is applied at a tip of a nose (Fig. 7).
Capelli teaches, as claimed in claim 14, wherein the video glasses comprise an orientation sensor connectable to the video glasses (Page 2, paragraph 10).
Capelli teaches, as claimed in claim 15, stereoscopic microscope comprising video glasses (Fig. 1).
Capelli teaches, as claimed in claim 16, wherein the locking device (12) is configured to maintain stable positioning of the image display unit during rapid head movements of a surgeon performing microsurgical procedures.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capelli (WO Patent Publication Number 2018/170522 A1) in view of Kreidler (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0043250 A1) and in further view of Pfisterer (DE Patent Number 3523446 A1).
Capelli and Kreidler fails to teach, as claimed in claim 6, wherein the latching device is configured as an elastically deformable tongue (26). In a related art, Pfisterer teaches wherein the latching device (5) is configured as an elastically deformable tongue (41 and 42, Page 5, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the video glasses, as taught by Capelli and Kreidler, with the latching device, as taught by Pfisterer, for the purpose of providing a way so the connection process is particularly simple (Page 2, paragraph 2).
Capelli and Kreidler fails to teach, as claimed in claim 7, wherein the elastic tongue is integrally made of plastic with the support device. In a related art, Pfisterer teaches wherein the elastic tongue (41 and 42) is integrally made of plastic with the support device ( Page 5, paragraphs 2 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the video glasses, as taught by Capelli, Kreidler and Pfisterer, with the latching device, as taught by Pfisterer, for the purpose of providing a way so the connection process is particularly simple (Page 2, paragraph 2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capelli (WO Patent Publication Number 2018/170522 A1) in view of Kreidler (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0043250 A1) and in further view of Wirth (US Patent Number 6,105,909 A).
Capelli and Kreidler fail to teach, as claimed in claim 13, wherein the joint comprises a parallelogram joint. In a related art, Wirth teaches wherein the joint comprises a parallelogram joint (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the video glasses, as taught by Capelli and Kreidler, with the parallelogram joint, as taught by Wirth, for the purpose of providing a way to compensate the torque of a useful load arranged on the pivot arm (Column 1, lines 8-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 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 prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 17, which includes wherein the locking device requires a two-stage release sequence comprising: (i) continued rotation beyond the holding position by at least 10 degrees in the certain rotational direction to disengage the latching device from the catch, and (ii) only then permitting rotation in the opposite direction toward the operating position.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 18, which includes wherein the locking device prevents unintended movement of the image display unit from the rest position during surgical procedures by requiring the further continued rotation before the release.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached on 571-272-2333. 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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
26 January 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 The image display 4 would be in front of the eyes of the user when in use with a user even though the user is not shown in the drawings.
2 The recess in the locking device 12.
3 As long as the latching device is connected to the catch no rotation is enabled in Fig. 7.
4 The angle in Fig. 7 can be set to any angle the user desires based on the type of hinge being used.
Prosecution Insights