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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending. In response to the Office Action mailed 10/01/2025 Applicant amended claims 1-11,16-18 and newly added claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1. Claim 1 recites the following limitation: " the visualization device is free of optical components between the left electronic monitor display screen and the left viewing window and between the right electronic monitor display screen and the right viewing window, allowing direct viewing of the left electronic monitor display screen through the left viewing window and of he electronic monitor right display screen through the right viewing window" The specification originally filed on May 25, 2023 does not disclose the elements recited in newly amended claim 1. Information contained in any one of the specification, claims or drawings of the application as filed may be added to any other part of the application without introducing new matter. MPEP 2163.06; see also 35 U.S.C. 132 - No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. It is noted that that Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 may imply the aforementioned limitation, but cannot be assumed absent explicit language in the specification.
Similarly claims 2-19 and 21 are rejected due to dependency to claim 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.
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. further in view of US 20200030054 A1 to Okawara.
Regarding Claim 1. Tesar discloses a 3D output device for stereoscopic image reproduction, the 3D output device comprising: than articulated arm (Fig. 1 Fig. 1 at least arm 7); an articulated arm base including a base joint movably supporting the articulated arm (See Fig. 1 console 3); a visualization device (See Fig. 2 imagining system 51) supported at the articulated arm by a head joint (as shown in Fig. 4A and described in para 77-80) and including an electronic monitor display screen housing including a left electronic monitor display screen and a right electronic monitor display screen both arranged inside the electronic monitor display screen housing (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 electronic monitor display screen housing includes a left viewing window arranged so that the left electronic monitor display screen is viewable from an outside through the left viewing window (Fig. 9B display optical system 11005, here a monitor may include displays 11010a and any elements 11014 and lens 11012 up to the pair of oculars), wherein the electronic monitor display screen housing includes a right viewing window arranged so that the right electronic monitor display screen is viewable from an outside through the right viewing window (Fig. 9B display optical system 11005, here a monitor may include displays 11010b and any elements 11014 and lens 11012 up to the pair of oculars), and wherein a distance between the left viewing window and the right viewing window corresponds to a typical interocular distance of a person (as shown in Fig. 4A).
Tesar does not explicitly state that a visualization device movably supported at the articulated arm by a head joint, although one of ordinary skill would expect the joint would allow for the visualization device to be movably supported at the articulated arm, the visualization device is free of optical components between the left electronic monitor display screen and the left viewing window and between the right electronic monitor display screen and the right viewing window, allowing direct viewing of the left electronic monitor display screen through the left viewing window and of he electronic monitor right display screen through the right viewing window.
However, Okawara discloses a visualization device (Fig. 1 display unit 14) is free of optical components between the left electronic monitor display screen (See Fig. 1 display devices 26L) and the left viewing window (Fig. 5B cover glasses 52) and between the right electronic monitor display screen (See Fig. 1 display devices 26L) and the right viewing window (Fig. 5B cover glasses 52), allowing direct viewing of the left electronic monitor display screen through the left viewing window and of he electronic monitor right display screen through the right viewing window (as shown in at least Fig. 5B) to view the microscopic observation image stereoscopically through the image display devices using an organic EL panel or the like arranged within the unit main body (para 100).
Further Anderson discloses a three-dimensional display for with articulate arms and a visualization device, wherein the visualization movably supported at the articulated arm by a 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 a visualization device movably supported at the articulated arm by a head joint, although one of ordinary skill would expect the joint would allow for the visualization device to be movably supported at the articulated arm, the visualization device is free of optical components between the left electronic monitor display screen and the left viewing window and between the right electronic monitor display screen and the right viewing window, allowing direct viewing of the left electronic monitor display screen through the left viewing window and of he electronic monitor right display screen through the right viewing window.
Regarding Claim 2. Anderson further discloses the electronic monitor display screen housing has a viewing window housing wall (See Fig. 2B) in which the left and right viewing windows are arranged, and wherein the viewing window housing wall has a curvature adapted to a 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 has a nose trough between the left and right viewing windows (11, 12) (See Fig. 2B).
Regarding Claim 4. Anderson further discloses the electronic monitor display screen housing is provided with at least one stray light protection shield which reduces penetration of stray light into the left and right viewing windows (See at least Fig. 2B face frame or eye shroud 222).
Regarding Claim 5. Anderson further discloses the electronic monitor display screen housing has a left housing section provided with the left electronic monitor display screen and with the left viewing window (See Assembly 230L and para 87), and wherein the electronic monitor display screen housing has a right housing section provided with the right electronic monitor display screen and with the right viewing window (See Assembly 230R and para 87), and wherein the left housing section is separated at least in sections from the right housing section, so that that only the left electronic monitor display screen is viewable through the left viewing window and only the right electronic monitor display screen is viewable through the right viewing window (See para 87).
Regarding Claim 6. Anderson further discloses the head joint comprises a head pivot joint by means of which the visualization device is mounted on the articulated arm 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 and through the center of the right viewing window is horizontal (See at least Fig. 2A, Fig. 3C and Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 8. Anderson further discloses the articulated arm comprises at least two articulated arm sections which are movably connected to each other by an intermediate pivot joint (See at least Fig. 2A arms 210 or Fig. 3C arms 310).
Regarding Claim 9. Tesar further discloses the articulated arm base 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 and/or of the visualization device (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 configured to lock a set alignment of the articulated arm and/or of the visualization device (para 51).
Regarding Claim 17. Anderson further discloses the articulated arm is provided with a handle configured to manually adjust an orientation of the articulated arm (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).
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 comprises a pin arranged on the articulated arm and a bearing shell arranged on the visualization device surrounding the pin.
However, Schmitt discloses the head pivot joint comprises a pin (Fig. 1 pin 6) arranged on the articulated arm (See Fig. 1) and a bearing shell arranged on the visualization device (Fig. 1 bearing disk 8 of joint 7) surrounding the pin (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 comprises a pin arranged on the articulated arm and a bearing shell arranged on the visualization device surrounding the pin.
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 is provided with a fastening device with which the articulated arm can be fastened to a wall or ceiling of a room or to an object.
However, Lau discloses the articulated arm base is provided with a fastening device with which the articulated arm 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 is provided with a fastening device with which the articulated arm 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 and/or the visualization device 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 and/or the visualization device is provided with a replaceable hygiene attachment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 contains allowable subject matter and could be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights