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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 January 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the remarks, the applicant argues that Rod is not concerned with naked eye 3D displays.
The examiner acknowledges that Rod does not teach or suggest naked eye 3D displays, however, Rod is concerned with 3D displays and the combination with Takahashi makes such concerns obvious for naked eye 3D displays as well.
On pages 6-7 of the remarks, the applicant argues that Rod does not disclose or suggest that “each of the two photosensitive elements is associated with a corresponding observation optical path wherein the two photosensitive elements are respectively defined as a left photosensitive element being associated with a first observation optical path and a right photosensitive element being associated with a second observation optical path for performing video signal transmission for the naked eye 3D displays at the same time, wherein the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display are reversely connected to the photosensitive elements so that the first observation optical path and the second observation optical path are cross-connected to the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display” recited in claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Rod teaches first and second observation optical paths, which are associated with left and right photosensitive elements (see at least Fig. 5C). Second, as stated in the previous rejection of claim 1, the automated function of the stereo image encoder/multiplier and the switching module of Rod achieves the same result as the cross-connection claimed by the applicant and thus it is held by the examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace an automated, computer-performed function with a manual one.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2003/0151809) and Rod (US 5,867,210) both of record.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2003/0151809) of record (hereafter Takahashi), in view of Rod (US 5,867,210) of record (hereafter Rod).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a surgical microscope having assistant's device (see at least Fig. 29), comprising a support (see at least Fig. 29 and paragraph [0104], where support arms 30 and main body 31 are a support), a microscope body (see at least Fig. 29 and paragraph [0104], where image input unit 35 is part of a surgical microscope), a first naked eye 3D display (see at least Fig. 29 and paragraphs [0104]-[0105], where one of the display panels is a first naked eye 3D display) and a second naked eye 3D display (see at least Fig. 29 and paragraphs [0104]-[0105], where the other of the display panels is a second naked eye 3D display), wherein the microscope body is mounted on the support (see at least Fig. 29), two photosensitive elements are arranged in the microscope body, wherein the two photosensitive elements are respectively defined as a left photosensitive element and a right photosensitive element for performing video signal transmission for the naked eye 3D displays at the same time (see at least Fig. 25 and paragraphs [0098] and [0104]-[0105], where the microscope has an image input unit, which is understood to include a photosensitive element, and the figure shows the 3D microscope comprising two cameras defined as right and left cameras), the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display are respectively connected to the photosensitive elements (see at least paragraph [0105]), and display directions of the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display are opposite (see at least Fig. 29, where the display directions are opposite).
Takahashi does not specifically disclose that each of the two photosensitive elements is associated with a corresponding observation optical path, the left photosensitive element being associated with a first observation optical path and the right photosensitive element being associated with a second observation optical path, the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display are reversely connected to the photosensitive elements so that the first observation optical path and the second observation optical path are cross-connected to the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display, wherein a left input port of the second naked eye 3D display is connected with the right photosensitive element and a right input port is connected with the left photosensitive element, and that directions of an image displayed by the first naked eye 3D display and an image displayed by the second naked eye 3D display are different by 180 degrees.
However, Rod teaches a surgical microscope having assistant's device (see at least the abstract and Fig. 1), comprising a support (see at least Fig. 1 and Col. 4, lines 48-49, where boom 20 is a support), a microscope body (see at least Fig. 1 and Col. 4, line 48, where 18 is a surgical microscope), a first 3D display and a second 3D display (see at least Fig. 1 and Col. 4, lines 57-59, where display monitors 24 and 26 are 3D displays), wherein the microscope body is mounted on the support (see at least Fig. 1), two photosensitive elements are arranged in the microscope body, wherein each of the two photosensitive elements is associated with a corresponding observation optical path, , the left photosensitive element being associated with a first observation optical path and the right photosensitive element being associated with a second observation optical path (see at least Fig. 5C), the first 3D display and the second 3D display are reversely connected to the photosensitive elements (see at least Fig. 2 and Col. 4, lines 55-59, where stereo camera pod 22 comprises a right camera 40 and a left camera 42 that are connected to the 3D displays via the stereo image encoder/multiplier and the switching module), display directions of the first 3D display and the second 3D display are opposite (see at least Fig. 1), and directions of an image displayed by the first 3D display and an image displayed by the second 3D display are different by 180 degrees (see at least Fig. 2, where display 24 shows an upright image and display 26 shows an inverted image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical microscope of Takahashi to include the teachings of Rod so that each of the two photosensitive elements is associated with a corresponding observation optical path, the left photosensitive element being associated with a first observation optical path and the right photosensitive element being associated with a second observation optical path, the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display are reversely connected to the photosensitive elements and that directions of an image displayed by the first naked eye 3D display and an image displayed by the second naked eye 3D display are different by 180 degrees for the purpose of orienting the displayed images to correspond to the viewpoint of each participant (see at least col. 3, lines 16-22 of Rod).
Takahashi as modified by Rod does not specifically disclose that the first observation optical path and the second observation optical path are cross-connected to the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display, wherein a left input port of the second naked eye 3D display is connected with the right photosensitive element and a right input port is connected with the left photosensitive element.
However, it has been held that broadly claiming an automated means to replace a manual function to accomplish the same result does not distinguish over the prior art and implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2114 (IV)). Thus, it would also be obvious to perform the inverse and replace an automated, computer-performed function with a manual one. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007). KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical microscope of Takahashi as modified by Rod so that the first observation optical path and the second observation optical path are cross-connected to the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display, wherein a left input port of the second naked eye 3D display is connected with the right photosensitive element and a right input port is connected with the left photosensitive element for the purpose of replacing the automated image reversing process described in Rod with a hardware connection that reverses the left and right image inputs in order to obtain predictable results such as a reversed image on the second naked eye 3D display.
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi as modified by Rod discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Takahashi also discloses a mounting rack, wherein the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display are respectively movably mounted on the mounting rack (see at least Figs. 27 and 29, where the displays are movably mounted on mounting rack 28).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi as modified by Rod discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Takahashi also discloses that the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display are respectively able to be driven to independently move on the mounting rack in a vertical direction (see at least Fig. 26 and paragraph [0101], where a connecting unit 30b allows the displays to be moved vertically).
Claims 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2003/0151809) of record (hereafter Takahashi), in view of Rod (US 5,867,210) of record (hereafter Rod) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yasunaga et al. (US 5,825,536) of record (hereafter Yasunaga).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi as modified by Rod discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Takahashi also discloses that the support comprises a base (see Fig. 29, where 31a is a base), the base comprising a bottom portion and a vertical portion (see at least fig. 29), a large cross arm rotatably mounted on the support rod (see at least Fig. 29, where 31 is a large cross arm), a small cross arm rotatably mounted on the large cross arm (see at least Fig. 29, where 30 is a small cross arm) and a final arm rotatably mounted on the small cross arm, and the microscope body is mounted on the final arm (see at least Fig. 29, where the portion of 30 between joint 30c and microscope body 35).
Takahashi as modified by Rod does not specifically disclose a support rod vertically mounted on the base and a balance arm rotatably mounted on the small cross arm.
However, Yasunaga teaches a surgical microscope including a support (see at least the abstract and fig. 1), the support comprising a base (see at least Fig. 1, where 4a is a base), a support rod vertically mounted on the base (see at least Fig. 1, where 4b is a support rod), a large cross arm rotatably mounted on the support rod (see at least Fig. 1, where 2 is a large cross arm), a small cross arm rotatably mounted on the large cross arm (see at least Fig. 1, where connecting block 9 is a small cross arm), and a balance arm rotatably mounted on the small cross arm with a microscope body mounted on the balance arm (see at least Fig. 1, where 10 is a balance arm with microscope body 12 mounted on the balance arm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical microscope of Takahashi as modified by Rod to include the teachings of Yasunaga so that the support comprises a support rod vertically mounted on the base and a balance arm rotatably mounted on the small cross arm for the purpose of substituting one support for another in order to obtain predictable results such as the desired range of motion and the ability for the microscope to hold its position.
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi as modified by Rod and Yasunaga discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
Takahashi also discloses that the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display are mounted on the microscope body through the mounting rack (see at least Fig. 29).
Additionally, regarding claim 5, Takahashi as modified by Rod and Yasunaga discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
Takahashi also discloses in a separate embodiment that the surgical microscope having assistant's device further comprises a seat body and a connecting rod mounted on the seat body, and a first naked eye 3D display is mounted on one end of the connecting rod through the mounting rack (see at least Fig. 27, where 31 comprises a seat body and a connecting rod, where the display panel is mounted via the mounting rack 28).
Takahashi as modified by Rod and Yasunaga does not specifically disclose that both the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display are mounted on one end of the connecting rod through the mounting rack.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the two embodiments of Takahashi so that both displays are mounted via a seat body and a connecting rod for the purpose of providing an assistant’s display along with a primary display regardless of how or where they are mounted within a surgical space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical microscope of Takahashi as modified by Rod and Yasunaga so that both the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display are mounted on one end of the connecting rod through the mounting rack for the purpose of substitute one display mounting for another in order to obtain predictable results such as separating the displays from the microscope body, thus allowing the displays to be mounted wherever is most convenient for a surgeon and assistant.
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi as modified by Rod and Yasunaga discloses all of the limitations of claim 5.
Takahashi also discloses that the other end of the connecting rod is movably mounted on the seat body, the connecting rod is able to be driven to move in an axis direction, and/or the connecting rod is able to be driven to rotate by taking an axis of the connecting rod as a rotating shaft (see at least Fig. 27 and paragraph [0102], where the support main body 31 can rotate relative to the ceiling mount in order to allow for a wide range of positions).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi as modified by Rod and Yasunaga discloses all of the limitations of claim 6.
Takahashi also discloses that the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display are able to be placed on the ground or suspended on a roof through the seat body and the connecting rod (see at least Figs. 26 and/or 27, where the display can be supported from the ground or from the ceiling).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi as modified by Rod and Yasunaga discloses all of the limitations of claim 5.
Takahashi also discloses a plurality of wheels, wherein the wheels are mounted at a bottom end of the base or the seat body (see at least Figs. 26 and 29 and paragraph [0101], where the base is shown to include a plurality of casters).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2003/0151809) of record (hereafter Takahashi), in view of Rod (US 5,867,210) of record (hereafter Rod) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0037210) of record (hereafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi as modified by Rod discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Takahashi as modified by Rod does not specifically disclose that a size of the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display is between 12 inches and 16 inches; and the surgical microscope further comprises an acquisition device, a processing device and a driving device, the acquisition device is able to be configured to acquire eye position information of an operator or an assistant, and the processing device is configured to be able to control the driving device to act according to the acquired eye position information to regulate a display angle of the first naked eye 3D display or the second naked eye 3D display.
However, Zhang teaches a naked-eye three-dimensional display device (see at least the title) comprising an acquisition device, a processing device and a driving device, the acquisition device is able to be configured to acquire eye position information of an operator or an assistant, and the processing device is configured to be able to control the driving device to act according to the acquired eye position information to regulate a display angle of a naked eye 3D display (see at least Fig. 8 and paragraph [0006], where the image collector is an acquisition device that acquires eye position information, the processor is a processing device, and the liquid crystal grating and display panel are a driving device that together regular a display angle of the naked eye 3D display).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical microscope of Takahashi as modified by Rod to include the teachings of Zhang so that the surgical microscope further comprises an acquisition device, a processing device and a driving device, the acquisition device is able to be configured to acquire eye position information of an operator or an assistant, and the processing device is configured to be able to control the driving device to act according to the acquired eye position information to regulate a display angle of the first naked eye 3D display or the second naked eye 3D display for the purpose of substituting one 3D display for another in order to obtain predictable results such as allowing the position of the viewer to change without causing crosstalk (see at least paragraph [0005] of Zhang).
Takahashi as modified by Rod and Zhang do not specifically disclose that a size of the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display is between 12 inches and 16 inches.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of a size of the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display being between 12 inches and 16 inches include meeting operational demands, such as being large enough to view and yet small enough to not be an obstacle in an operating room.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical microscope of Takahashi as modified by Rod and Zhang so that a size of the first naked eye 3D display and the second naked eye 3D display is between 12 inches and 16 inches for the purpose of meeting operational demands, such as being large enough to view and yet small enough to not be an obstacle in an operating room.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2003/0151809) of record (hereafter Takahashi), in view of Rod (US 5,867,210) of record (hereafter Rod) and Yasunaga et al. (US 5,825,536) of record (hereafter Yasunaga) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hoppi et al. (US 3,637,233) of record (hereafter Hoppi).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi as modified by Rod and Yasunaga discloses all of the limitations of claim 9.
Takahashi as modified by Rod and Yasunaga does not specifically disclose that the wheels are universal wheels.
However, Hoppi teaches a transport mechanism for a surgical microscope (see at least the title) comprising universal wheels (see at least Col. 3, lines 12-67, where 41 and 43 are swivel casters, which are understood to be the same as universal wheels since they can be used to roll in any direction along the floor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical microscope of Takahashi as modified by Rod and Yasunaga to include the teachings of Hoppi so that the wheel are universal wheels for the purpose of making the surgical microscope fully mobile and able to be easily moved (see at least Col. 3, lines 60-63 of Hoppi).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2003/0151809) of record (hereafter Takahashi), in view of Rod (US 5,867,210) of record (hereafter Rod) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuta et al. (US 2012/0008194) (hereafter Mizuta).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi as modified by Rod discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Takahashi as modified by Rod does not specifically disclose that the device further comprises at least one illumination unit, wherein the at least one illumination unit provides a pair of symmetrical illumination optical paths to the first observation optical path and the second observation optical path.
However, Mizuta teaches a stereoscopic microscope device (see at least the abstract) comprising first and second observation optical paths (see at least Fig. 21) and at last one illumination unit, wherein the at least one illumination unit provides a pair of symmetrical illumination optical paths to the first observation optical path and the second observation optical path (see at least Fig. 21 and paragraph [0160]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Takahashi as modified by Rod to include the teachings of Mizuta so that the device further comprises at least one illumination unit, wherein the at least one illumination unit provides a pair of symmetrical illumination optical paths to the first observation optical path and the second observation optical path for the purpose of providing coaxial epi-illumination that provides efficient illumination of an object under observation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2003/0151809) of record (hereafter Takahashi), in view of Rod (US 5,867,210) of record (hereafter Rod) and Mizuta et al. (US 2012/0008194) (hereafter Mizuta) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ellis (US 4,255,014) (hereafter Ellis).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi as modified by Rod and Mizuta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Takahashi as modified by Rod and Mizuta does not specifically disclose that the at least one illumination unit comprises: a light source assembly; a collecting lens group; a diaphragm; and a projection lens group, wherein when the light source assembly is switched on, the at least one illumination unit provides light enters each of the pair of symmetrical illumination optical paths.
However, Ellis teaches a microscope device comprising an illumination unit, wherein the illumination unit comprises: a light source assembly; a collecting lens group; a diaphragm; and a projection lens group, wherein when the light source assembly is switched on, the at least one illumination unit provides light enters each of the pair of symmetrical illumination optical paths (see at least Fig. 3, where 112 is a light source, 112 is a collector lens, 114 is a diaphragm, and 117 is a projection lens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Takahashi as modified by Rod and Mizuta to include the teachings of Ellis so that the at least one illumination unit comprises: a light source assembly; a collecting lens group; a diaphragm; and a projection lens group, wherein when the light source assembly is switched on, the at least one illumination unit provides light enters each of the pair of symmetrical illumination optical paths for the purpose of using conventional optical elements in order to provide illumination within the device (see at least Col. 8, lines 40-47 of Ellis).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872