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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN 106199942).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. (figures 1-9) discloses a microscope objective lens switching apparatus configured to switch an objective lens of a microscope (see at least page 1, last paragraph), the switching apparatus comprising: a base (10), a rotation drive module (9) secured onto the base, a transmission module (6-8, 11) connected to the rotation drive module, and a turntable (12) fixedly connected to the transmission module and fixedly connected to the objective lens (4);
wherein the transmission module comprises a housing (11) fixed onto the base, a coupler (7) with one end detachably secured to the an output shaft of the rotation drive module, a double lead worm (6) fixedly connected to another end of the coupler, and a worm gear (12-13) in mesh engagement with the double lead worm, wherein the worm is fixedly connected to the turntable, and by disconnecting the coupler from the output shaft and rotating the coupler, the double lead worm moves along an axial direction to change a mesh engagement clearance between the double lead worm and the worm gear (see at least page 3, 2nd paragraph and figure 8).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
The limitation, “by disconnecting the coupler from the output shaft and rotating the coupler, the double lead worm moves along an axial direction to change a mesh engagement clearance between the double lead worm and the worm gear” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Liu et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 3, Liu et al. (figures 1-9) discloses wherein one end of the coupler is threaded to the output shaft (7, 9).
Regarding claim 8, Liu et al. (figures 1-9) discloses wherein a plurality of first connection holes are defined in the turntable, wherein the plurality of first connection holes are configured to connect the objective lens (4; figures 2 and 8).
Regarding claim 9, Liu et al. (figures 1-9) discloses wherein a plurality of second connection holes are defined in the base, wherein the plurality of second connection hole are configured to connect an ocular lens system of the microscope (4; figures 2 and 8 and see at least page 1, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Liu et al. (figures 1-9) discloses microscope, comprising: a microscope objective lens switching apparatus configured to switch an objective lens of a microscope (see at least page 1, last paragraph);
the switching apparatus comprising: a base (10), a rotation drive module (9) secured onto the base, a transmission module (6-8, 11) connected to the rotation drive module, and a turntable (12) fixedly connected to the transmission module and fixedly connected to the objective lens (4);
wherein the transmission module comprises a housing (11) fixed onto the base, a coupler (7) with one end detachably secured to the an output shaft of the rotation drive module, a double lead worm (6) fixedly connected to another end of the coupler, and a worm gear (12-13) in mesh engagement with the double lead worm, wherein the worm is fixedly connected to the turntable, and by disconnecting the coupler from the output shaft and rotating the coupler, the double lead worm moves along an axial direction to change a mesh engagement clearance between the double lead worm and the worm gear (see at least page 3, 2nd paragraph and figure 8).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
The limitation, “by disconnecting the coupler from the output shaft and rotating the coupler, the double lead worm moves along an axial direction to change a mesh engagement clearance between the double lead worm and the worm gear” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Liu et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 106199942) in view of Wang et al. (CN 111561546).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, Liu et al. is silent regarding wherein a thickness of the double lead worm decreases from a side close to the coupler to a side away from the coupler, and the double lead worm has identical flank leads on the side away from the coupler. Wang et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein a thickness of the double lead worm (2) decreases from a side close to the coupler to a side away from the coupler, and the double lead worm has identical flank leads on the side away from the coupler (figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the worm as taught by Wang et al. in order to reduce the abnormal noise generated by the steering of the redirector.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 106199942) in view of Hoelter (WO 2005/106284).
Regarding claim 4, Liu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Liu et al. is silent regarding a manual knob arranged on a side, away from the rotation drive module, of the housing, wherein the manual knob is threaded to one end, away from the coupler, of the double lead worm. Hoelter (figures 1-2) teaches a manual knob arranged on a side, away from the rotation drive module, of the housing (figure 1), wherein the manual knob is threaded to one end, away from the coupler (6), of the double lead worm (1 and a suitable tool; see at least page 4, last paragraph and page 5, first and second paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the knob as taught by Hoelter in order to achieve a precise and reproducible bias of the teeth of worm via the torque that can be measured when adjusting.
Regarding claim 5, Hoelter (figures 1-2) teaches wherein a first threaded hole in threaded engagement with one end, away from the coupler (6), of the double lead worm (2), and a second threaded hole in communication with the first threaded hole are defined in the manual knob, wherein a stop screw passing through the second threaded hole and configured to secure the double lead worm is connected to the second threaded hole (15-16 and a suitable tool; see at least page 4, last paragraph and page 5, first and second paragraphs).
Regarding claim 6, Hoelter (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the transmission module further comprises a first bearing (7-8) arranged on a side, facing towards the double lead worm, of the manual knob, a bearing sleeve fixedly connected to an inner side of the first bearing (8 and 11), and a flat key (15) slidably connected to the bearing sleeve, wherein a keyway corresponding to the flat key defined in the double lead worm, and a slideway axially parallel to the double lead worm is defined in an inner side of the bearing sleeve (8 and 11), wherein one side of the flat key is embedded into the keyway, another side of the flat key is situated in the slideway, a length of the slideway in the axial direction of the double lead worm is greater than a length of the flat key (15 and 2), a width of the slideway and a width of the keyway are equal to a width of the flat key, and the manual knob is threaded to the bearing sleeve (15-16 and a suitable tool; see at least page 4, last paragraph and page 5, first and second paragraphs).
The limitation, “wherein a keyway corresponding to the flat key defined in the double lead worm, and a slideway axially parallel to the double lead worm is defined in an inner side of the bearing sleeve, wherein one side of the flat key is embedded into the keyway, another side of the flat key is situated in the slideway” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Liu et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 106199942) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 111780972).
Regarding claim 7, Liu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Liu et al. is silent regarding a spring. Hughes (figures 1-4) teaches wherein the transmission module further comprises a second bearing (216) sleeved onto a side, close to the coupler (108), of the double lead worm (23), and a clamping spring (218) sleeved onto the double lead worm and situated on a side, close to the coupler, of the second bearing, wherein an outer side of the second bearing is detachably and fixedly connected to the housing, and the clamping spring is configured to restrict an axial movement of the second bearing along the double lead worm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the spring as taught by Hughes in order to ensure an effective and sealing bond.
The limitation, “wherein an outer side of the second bearing is detachably and fixedly connected to the housing” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Liu et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871