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 Amendment
The amendments to the abstract of the disclosure in the preliminary amendment filed 4/25/2023 are acknowledged and accepted.
The amendments to Claims 3-12 in the preliminary amendment filed 4/25/2023 are acknowledged and accepted.
The addition of Claims 13-20 in the preliminary amendment filed 4/25/2023 is acknowledged and accepted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 4/25/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 13-15, 18 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 2 recites the limitation "the basis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-15, 18 are dependent on Claim 2, and hence inherit the deficiencies of Claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-7, 9-20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2020/0260936 A1).
Matsuka et al. discloses a light source device (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-20) comprising a connector (See for example 10 in Figures 1-3) that allows a light guide member (See for example 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 in Figures 1, 3, 10-12) to be detachably connected thereto; a light source (See for example 1-3 in Figure 1) that emits light to be incident on the light guide member connected to the connector; a lever member (See for example 20, 50 in Figures 2-4, 7-12) that is displaced depending on presence or absence of the connection of the light guide member to the connector; and a detector (See for example 68 in Figures 7-8; Paragraphs 0053-0054, 0062-0064) that detects the displacement of the lever member and outputs a detection result. Matsuka et al. further discloses a lighting circuit that determines, based on the detection result, whether or not the light guide member is connected to the connector and turns OFF the light source when determining that the light guide member is not connected to the connector (See for example 68 in Figures 7-8; Paragraphs 0053-0054, 0062-0064); the detector includes a contact maker (See for example 30 in Figures 2-6), with which the lever member is brought into contact, when the light guide member is connected to the connector; the detector includes a sensor that detects a position of the lever member in a non-contact manner (See for example 68 in Figures 7-8; Paragraphs 0053-0054, 0062-0064); the detector includes a substrate having an opening or a notch through which the lever member is inserted (See for example 62, 63, 64, 65, 52 in Figures 4, 7-8, 10-12); the detector includes a spring member having an insertion portion through which the lever member is inserted (See for example 55 in Figure 16); the lever member has one end as a fixed end (See for example 52 in Figures 4, 7-8, 10-12), has another end as a free end (See for example 54 in Figures 4, 7-8, 10-12), and is displaced by movement of the free end; a detection unit (See for example 20, 50, 68 in Figures 2-4, 7-12) comprising the lever member and the detector each included in the above light source device; an optical system comprising the above light source device and the light guide member (See for example Figure 1); an endoscope comprising the above light source device and the light guide member (See for example Figure 1); and an industrial microscope comprising the above light source device and the light guide member (See for example Figure 1).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuka et al.
Matsuka et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, except for the light source emitting laser light as the light. However, the use of lasers in endoscopic applications and devices is very well known and conventional in the art. Official Notice is taken. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light source of Matsuka et al.., emit laser light as the light, to take advantage of the high light brightness/intensities and/or optical coherence properties provided by such laser sources, based on the intended application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2017/0172390 A1 to Fu et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Group Art Unit 2872
7/21/2025
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872