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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. In response to the Office Action mailed 7/09/2025 Applicant amended claim 1 and newly added claim 20.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150085095 A1 to Tesar in view of US 20180092706 A1 to Anderson et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Tesar discloses a 3D output device (1) for stereoscopic image reproduction, with an articulated arm (2) (Fig. 1 at least arm 7), wherein the articulated arm (2) is provided with a base joint, via which the articulated arm (2) is movably received on an articulated arm base (5) (See Fig. 1 console 3), and wherein the articulated arm (2) is provided with a head joint (Shown in Fig. 4A and described in para 77-80), with a visualization device (7) (imagining system 51), which is arranged on the articulated arm (2) by the head joint (as shown in Fig. 4A and described in para 77-80), with a monitor housing (8) of the visualization device (7) (See exterior housing of imagining system 51), with a left monitor (9) and a right monitor (10) which are arranged in the monitor housing (8), wherein the monitor housing (8) is provided with a left viewing window (11), which is assigned to the left monitor (9) and through which the left monitor (9) can be viewed from the outside, wherein the monitor housing (8) is provided with a right viewing window (12), assigned with the right monitor (10), through which the right monitor (10) can be viewed from the outside (See at least Fig. 4A with left and right oculars 11 and Fig. 9B showing an example of a system capable of stereovision), wherein the visualization device (7) is free of optical components between the left monitor (9) and the left viewing window (11) and between the right monitor (10) and the right viewing window (12), allowing direct viewing of the left and right monitors (9, 10) (Fig. 9B display optical system 11005, here a monitor may include displays 11010a and 11010b respectively and any elements 11014 and lens 11012 up to the pair of oculars), and wherein the distance between the left viewing window (11) and the right viewing window (12) corresponds to a typical interocular distance of a person (as shown in Fig. 4A).
Tesar does not explicitly state that a visualization device (7) is arranged movably on the articulated arm (2) by the head joint, although one of ordinary skill would expect the joint would allow for the visualization device (7) being arranged movably on the articulated arm.
Further Anderson discloses a three-dimensional display for with articulate arms and a visualization device, wherein the visualization device is arranged movably on the articulated arm by the head joint (See at least Fig. 3C with joints 312 attaching arms 310 to display housing 320), as applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(D), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the visualization device (7) is arranged movably on the articulated arm (2) by the head joint.
Regarding Claim 2. Anderson further discloses the monitor housing (8) has a viewing window housing wall (13) (See Fig. 2B) in which the left and right viewing windows (11, 12) are arranged, and that wherein the viewing window housing wall (13) has a curvature adapted to the shape of a person's head (See at least Fig. 2A, it is noted that any curvature that would not inhibit interocular viewing would satisfy this limitation).
Regarding Claim 3. Anderson further discloses the viewing window housing wall (13) has a nose trough (14) between the left and right viewing windows (11, 12) (See Fig. 2B).
Regarding Claim 4. Anderson further discloses the monitor housing (8) is provided with at least one stray light protection shield (15) which reduces the penetration of stray light into the left and right viewing windows (11, 12) (See at least Fig. 2B face frame or eye shroud 222).
Regarding Claim 5. Anderson further discloses the monitor housing (8) has a left housing section provided with the left monitor (9) and with the left viewing window (11), and wherein the monitor housing (8) (See Assembly 230L and para 87) has a right housing section provided with the right monitor (10) and with the right viewing window (12) (See Assembly 230R and para 87), and wherein the left housing section (16) is separated at least in sections from the right housing section (17) in such a way that only the left monitor (9) can be viewed through the left viewing window (11) and only the right monitor (10) can be viewed through the right viewing window (12) (See para 87).
Regarding Claim 6. Anderson further discloses the head joint (6) comprises a head pivot joint (18a, 18b, 18c) by means of which the visualization device (7) is mounted on the articulated arm (2) so as to be movable about an axis of rotation and aligns itself horizontally according to its weight, wherein a straight line extending through the center of the left viewing window (11) and through the center of the right viewing window (12) is horizontal (See at least Fig. 2A, Fig. 3C and Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 8. Anderson further discloses the articulated arm (2) comprises at least two articulated arm sections (3a, 3b, 3c, 3d) which are movably connected to each other by an intermediate pivot joint (20a, 20b) (See at least Fig. 2A arms 210 or Fig. 3C arms 310).
Regarding Claim 9. Tesar further discloses the articulated arm base (5) is movable (See at least Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11. Anderson further discloses the 3D output device is provided with at least one drive which adjusts the orientation of the articulated arm (2) and/or of the visualization device (7) (See para 92 and Fig. 19 motors 1912).
Regarding Claim 12. Anderson further discloses the drive is provided with a control device (See para 92 and Fig. 19 arm controller 1910).
Regarding Claim 13. Anderson further discloses the control device comprises a voice control (para 80).
Regarding Claim 14. Anderson further discloses the control device comprises a motion control which detects movements of a user, evaluates the movements and controls the drive accordingly (para 99-100).
Regarding Claim 15. Anderson further discloses the control device is equipped with a manually operable input device (para 80).
Regarding Claim 16. Anderson further discloses the 3D output device comprises a locking device with which a set alignment of the articulated arm (2) and/or of the visualization device (7) can be locked (para 51).
Regarding Claim 17. Anderson further discloses the articulated arm (2) is provided with a handle for manually adjusting the orientation of the articulated arm (2) (para 80).
Regarding Claim 19. Anderson further discloses the 3D output device is provided with an imaging system (See at least para 43 endoscope camera).
Regarding Claim 20. Tesar discloses a 3D output device (1) for stereoscopic image reproduction, with an articulated arm (2) (Fig. 1 at least arm 7), wherein the articulated arm (2) is provided with a base joint, via which the articulated arm (2) is movably received on an articulated arm base (5) (See Fig. 1 console 3), and wherein the articulated arm (2) is provided with a head joint (Shown in Fig. 4A and described in para 77-80), with a visualization device (7) (imagining system 51), which is arranged on the articulated arm (2) by the head joint (as shown in Fig. 4A and described in para 77-80), with a monitor housing (8) of the visualization device (7) (See exterior housing of imagining system 51), with a left monitor (9) and a right monitor (10) which are arranged in the monitor housing (8), wherein the monitor housing (8) is provided with a left viewing window (11), which is assigned to the left monitor (9) and through which the left monitor (9) can be viewed from the outside, wherein the monitor housing (8) is provided with a right viewing window (12), assigned with the right monitor (10), through which the right monitor (10) can be viewed from the outside (See at least Fig. 4A with left and right oculars 11 and Fig. 9B showing an example of a system capable of stereovision), and wherein the distance between the left viewing window (11) and the right viewing window (12) corresponds to a typical interocular distance of a person (as shown in Fig. 4A).
Tesar does not explicitly state that the head joint has a first head rotary joint (18a), a second head rotary joint (18b), a third head rotary joint (18c), and a connecting portion (17) connecting the second head rotary joint (18b) with the third head rotary joint (18c), wherein a rotation axis of the first head rotary joint (18a) and the rotation axis of the second head rotary joint (18b) are perpendicular to each other, wherein the third head rotary joint (18c) enables the visualization device (7) to rotate about the longitudinal axis (L) of the vertically configured visualization device (7).
Further Anderson discloses a three-dimensional display for with articulate arms and the head joint has a first head rotary joint (18a) (See at least Fig. 3C joint 312), a second head rotary joint (18b) (See at least Fig. 3C joint 312), a third head rotary joint (18c) (See at least Fig. 3C joint 312), and a connecting portion (17) (See at least Fig. 3C support arm 310) connecting the second head rotary joint (18b) with the third head rotary joint (18c) (See at least Fig. 3C), wherein a rotation axis of the first head rotary joint (18a) and the rotation axis of the second head rotary joint (18b) are perpendicular to each other (See para 54 “at least some joints may be spherical joints or other suitable joints to permit any suitable ambidextrous reposing of the support arm 310 in space. For example, a distal yaw joint and/or tilt axis may enable the housing 320 to pivot in order to accommodate approach of the housing 320 from either side of the user”), wherein the third head rotary joint (18c) enables the visualization device (7) to rotate about the longitudinal axis (L) of the vertically configured visualization device (7) (See para 54), as applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(D), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the head joint has a first head rotary joint (18a), a second head rotary joint (18b), a third head rotary joint (18c), and a connecting portion (17) connecting the second head rotary joint (18b) with the third head rotary joint (18c), wherein a rotation axis of the first head rotary joint (18a) and the rotation axis of the second head rotary joint (18b) are perpendicular to each other, wherein the third head rotary joint (18c) enables the visualization device (7) to rotate about the longitudinal axis (L) of the vertically configured visualization device (7).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tesar and Anderson as applied to claim 6 in view of US 6261023 B1 to Schmitt et al.
Regarding Claim 7. As stated above Tesar and Anderson discloses all the limitation of base claim 6.
Tesar and Anderson do not explicitly state that the head pivot joint (18a, 18b, 18c) comprises a pin (23) arranged on the articulated arm (2) and a bearing shell arranged on the visualization device (7) surrounding the pin (23).
However, Schmitt discloses the head pivot joint (18a, 18b, 18c) comprises a pin (23) (Fig. 1 pin 6) arranged on the articulated arm (2) (See Fig. 1) and a bearing shell arranged on the visualization device (7) (Fig. 1 bearing disk 8 of joint 7) surrounding the pin (23) (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 8), to assist the movements of the articulated arm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the head pivot joint (18a, 18b, 18c) comprises a pin (23) arranged on the articulated arm (2) and a bearing shell arranged on the visualization device (7) surrounding the pin (23).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tesar and Anderson as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20130161466 A1 to Lau et al.
Regarding Claim 10. As stated above Tesar and Anderson discloses all the limitation of base claim 1.
Tesar and Anderson do not explicitly state that the articulated arm base (5) is provided with a fastening device with which the articulated arm (2) can be fastened to a wall or ceiling of a room or to an object.
However, Lau discloses the articulated arm base (5) is provided with a fastening device with which the articulated arm (2) can be fastened to a wall or ceiling of a room or to an object (See at least Fig. 1 securing element 2) to secure the articulated arm and visualization device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the articulated arm base (5) is provided with a fastening device with which the articulated arm (2) can be fastened to a wall or ceiling of a room or to an object.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tesar and Anderson as applied to claim 6 in view of US 20060168732 A1 to Makino.
Regarding Claim 18. As stated above Tesar and Anderson discloses all the limitation of base claim 1.
Tesar and Anderson do not explicitly state that the articulated arm (2) and/or the visualization device (7) is provided with a replaceable hygiene attachment.
However, Makino discloses a medical device that comes in contact with parts of a user’s head is provided with a replaceable hygiene attachment (See at least para 6), for user hygiene.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the articulated arm (2) and/or the visualization device (7) is provided with a replaceable hygiene attachment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the prior art of records does not specifically disclose “the visualization device (7) is free of optical components between the left monitor (9) and the left viewing window (11) and between the right monitor (10) and the right viewing window (12), allowing direct viewing of the left and right monitors (9, 10).”
However, the left and right monitors recited in the claims are not limited by any structural limitations, therefore a monitor may include an optical element associated with a display so that it may be viewed by the viewer/user.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871