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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on August 9, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 2022-11040438.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “combined and separated transmission device” (claim 3); “transmission part” (claim 5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: release plate 306A (page 4, line 13).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 4, the description of the drawings refers to the drawings as depicting “this patent” or “the patent”. Such statements are consistent with the description of what is depicted within the drawings. Additionally, this is application is not a patent. Examiner suggests restating what the Figures actually depict without the use of “patent”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 24, Examiner suggests -- and power-off and --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a) an electric drive mechanism…is used to drive the illumination arm…in claim 1
b) the combined and separated transmission device…to swing…in claim 3
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the connecting part” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Examiner will understand “a connecting part”.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the electric swing” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Examiner will understand “an electric swing”.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “the manual swing”, which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Examiner will understand “a manual swing”.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “the electric illumination arm mechanism realizes the manual swing of the illumination arm” which is a function that does not follow from the recited structure of the claim (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Specifically, it is unclear what structure allows for such manual swing, or if such feature is merely a recitation of the operation of the device of claim 1. For example is this a human manually operates some power switch to drive the illumination arm? A human physically moves the slit lamp? Other? The metes and bounds are unclear since whether some other structure is required to manually swing or if such limitations are a recitation of any human interaction with the electric illumination arm mechanism. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand that so long as the art teaches claim 1 and a slit lamp, such manual swing is necessarily present.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “the connecting end” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Examiner will understand “a connecting end”.
As to claim 4, the claim recites “the output end” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Examiner will understand “an output end”.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “the combination and separation transmission device” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Examiner will understand “the combined and separated transmission device”.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “the transmission part” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Examiner will understand “the transmission device”.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “through power-on and power-off…when the combined and separated transmission device is powered on….wherein the combined and separated transmission device is powered off” which is unclear how the function of power-on and power-off are provided since the claim fails to include any particular structure for powering-on/off (MPEP 2173.05(g)). The metes and bounds are unclear since the function of powering does not follow from the recited structure of the claim.
Examiner will understand the claim to implicitly provide some power source.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “combination and separation device is used to manually control” which is a product and method of step of using the product in the same claim and thus indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(p)). The metes and bounds are unclear since those of ordinary skill in the art would not understand whether infringement happens when the device is used, or when the device created.
Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the art teaches the claimed structure, such use will be implicit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1),(a2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2022/0400949 - Lin).
As to claim 1, Lin teaches an electric illumination arm mechanism based on slit lamp microscope (Lin Fig. 6 - 72, 80; para. [0056], [0084]; Fig. 39), which is characterized in that the electric illumination arm comprising a lifting arm (Lin Fig. 39 - 550; Fig. 22 - 550), an illumination arm (Lin Fig. 39 - 552; Fig. 22 - 552), and an electric drive mechanism (Lin Fig. 22 - 744, 1506, 1520, 1514, 1508; para. [0141]-[0143]);
the electric drive mechanism is fixed on the connecting part of the lifting arm (Lin Fig. 22 - 744, 550, 552), which is used to drive the illumination arm to swing and realize the electric swing of the illumination arm (Lin Fig. 22 - 744, 745; ; Fig. 39 - 72; para. [0141]-[0143] - as discussed, the motor (744) operates to rotate the illumination arm (72, 80) about axis (745)).
As to claim 2 (as understood), Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lin further teaches the electric illumination arm mechanism realize the manual swing of the illumination arm (Lin Fig. 6 - 72, 80; Fig. 39; para. [0084]).
As to claim 3, Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lin further teaches the electric drive mechanism is a motor-driven combined and separated transmission device (Lin Fig. 22 - 744, 1520, 1508, 1514), which drives the illumination arm at the connected end of the combined and separated transmission device to swing (Lin Fig. 22 - 744, 1508, 1514; para. [0141]-[0143]).
As to claim 4, Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lin further teaches the electric drive mechanism comprises a bracket (Lin Fig. 22 - 1512), a motor (Lin Fig. 22 - 1506), a combined and separated transmission device (Lin Fig. 22 - 1520), a driving gear (Lin Fig. 22 - 1508), and a driven gear (Lin Fig. 22 - 1514), the motor is installed on the bracket (Lin Fig. 22 - 1506, 1512), the combined and separated transmission device is installed on the output end of the motor (Lin Fig. 22 - 1520), and the driving gear is installed on the combined and separated transmission device (Lin Fig. 22 - driving gear (1508) installed on the transmission device (1520)) and the driven gear is installed on the illumination arm (Lin Fig. 22 - 1514, 72).
As to claim 6, Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lin further teaches the electric driving mechanism is a gear drive mechanism, a chain drive mechanism, a belt drive mechanism, a cam drive mechanism, a connecting rod drive mechanism, or a worm gear and worm drive mechanism (Lin Fig. 22 - 1506, 1508, 1514; para. [0141]-[0143]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Meznaric et al. (CH 709563; text references made to the English machine translation).
As to claim 5, Lin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and but doesn’t specify he combination and separation transmission device controls the combination and separation of the transmission part through power-on and power-of and when the combined and separated transmission device is powered on, the transmission part is combined, and the motor drives the illumination arm to swing and when the combined and separated transmission device is powered off, the transmission part is separated, and the 8 illumination arm swings manually and combination and separation transmission device is used to manually control the combination and separation of transmission parts.
In the same field of endeavor Meznaric teaches a slit lamp and electric drive mechanism employing a combination and separation transmission device (electromagnetic (EM) clutch) (Meznaric Figs. 1a-2b - 240; para. [0062]) whereby the EM clutch controls combination and separation of the transmission part through power-on and power-off (Meznaric Figs. 1a-2b - 240; para. [0063], [0066]) and when the combined and separated transmission device is powered on, the transmission part is combined and the motor drives the illumination arm to swing (Meznaric Figs. 2a-2b - 240; para. [0066]) and when the combined and separated transmission device is powered off, the transmission part is separated (Meznaric Figs. 1a-1b - 240; para. [0062]), and the illumination arm swings manually (Meznaric para. [0062]) and combination and separation transmission is used to manually control the combination and separation of transmission parts (Meznaric para. [0062], [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide an EM clutch (combination and separation transmission device) since, as taught by Meznaric, such devices allow for switching between motorized and manual control of slit lamps (Meznaric Figs. 1a-2b; para. [0009]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Berestka et al. (US 10,687,703; 2019/0053703); Sander (US 7,724,429); Ulbers et al. (US 6,474,815); Daly et al. (US 4,638,801); Tagnon (US 4,554,917); McGrann et al. (US 3,830,562); Ulbers (US 2004/0135971); Ruedel (DE 3151837); Haag-Streit (GB 852,964); Battaglia (WO 99/56611) are cited as additional examples of slit lamps with motorized control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 14, 2025