DETAILED ACTION
1. This is the initial office action for application 18/226,508, which is a continuation of US Patent Application 17/400,483 filed on 08/21/2021. Claims 1-6, and 21-34 are considered. Claims 7-20 are canceled.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I directed to claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 05/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Newly submitted claims 21-34 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 21-27 and 28-34 are directed to “alignment nozzle rig” which is classified in B05B 15/68, which is distinct from the "alignment nozzle jig" as recited in the original claims.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits.
Accordingly, claims 21-34 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claim Interpretation
3. Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 recites the term, “endoscope”. The recited term is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as an imaging device or an optical device configured to visually observe or capture images of a target region to satisfy the claimed limitation(s).
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.
4. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (US 20040231593 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Edwards teaches an apparatus comprised of a PMD head support 18 (alignment nozzle block), alignment component 20 (endoscope holder) [para 58; fig 1]. The alignment component 20 is attached below PMD head support 18 as shown in fig 1.
The apparatus also includes alignment marks such as fiducial marks that corresponds to the claimed ‘alignment mark.’ The fiducial marks 48 are etched on substrate 38, which is connected (coupled) to PMD head support 18 through PMD system 10 [para 58-59; fig 1]. The fiducial marks 48 are disposed at a side facing opposite of PMD head support 18 [fig 1].
Edwards teaches alignment component 20 (endoscope holder) is fixedly attached to the PMD head support 18 (alignment nozzle block). Edwards do not specifically teach the endoscope holder is removably secured to the alignment nozzle block. Removable and fixed attachment are well known techniques to secure components and are alternatives to each other and one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized it. Such modifications would possibly done for maintenance, inspection, or assembling while preserving the purpose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to removably attach an alignment component 20 to the PMD head support for maintenance, inspection, or assembling. (MPEP 2144.04.V.C)
Regarding Claim 2: Edwards teaches that the alignment component 20 (endoscope holder) comprises a camera (endoscope).
Regarding Claim 3: Edwards teaches a computer system 100 with a screen that controls the whole PMD system 10 and its components such as the alignment component 20 [para 91]. The computer system 100 is physically connected to PMD system and its components.
Regarding Claim 4: Edwards teaches the alignment component 20 (endoscope holder) comprises a camera (endoscope). One having ordinary skill in the art would know that a camera includes a lens for receiving and focusing image information. Because the camera is included in the alignment component 20, the lens of the camera likewise is disposed within the alignment component 20.
5. Alternatively, claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (US 20040231593 A1) and in view of Eto (US 20180261481 A1).
Regarding Claim 4 and 5: Edwards teaches an apparatus, however, does not teach the specific limitations of claim 4 and 5.
Eto teaches an apparatus that utilizes a fiber camera 105 (endoscope) to illuminate an electrode 100. A collimation lens 85 (lens) is disposed between fiber camera 105 and transmission window 87 (alignment mark) [para 164; fig 10B, fig 10C].
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fiber camera configuration into the invention of Edwards because Eto teaches that the collimation lens assists in guiding reflected light into the fiber camera which generates image of substrate/electrode [para 166 for motivation].
Regarding Claim 6: Edwards teaches an apparatus, however, does not teach the specific limitations of claim 6.
Eto teaches fiber camera 105 generates images that viewed in display 106, which means that display 106 is connected to fiber camera 105. [para 166]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wasiqul Haq whose telephone number is (571)272-9973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm ET.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/WASIQUL HAQ/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights