DETAILED ACTION
I. 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 .
II. Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
III. Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention A in the reply filed on December 17, 2025 is acknowledged. Specifically, Applicant elects claims 1-11 and 16 for examination. Although the examiner indicated that claim 16 is associated with invention A, that claim cannot be examined per Applicant’s election because it depends on claim 12, directed to non-elected Invention B. However, the limitations of claim 16 can be examined if represented as dependent on claim 1 and without the computing device functions of claims 12-15.
Applicant’s traversal of the examiner’s restriction requirement is on the ground that claims 12-15 can be grouped in Invention A because the examiner erroneously characterized those claims as a process of use associated with the product of claims 1-11 and claim 12 specifically references the instrument of claim 1 and on the ground that the examiner has not shown that the differences between Invention A and Inventions B and C are material differences.
As to Applicant’s first argument, the examiner agrees with Applicant that claims 12-15 are technically directed to a product not a process of use. However, the principal limitations that necessitate restriction are the computing device functions. Whether framed as computing device functions or pure method steps, the basis for restriction is that those functions/steps are associated with an invention distinct from the structure of the instrument of claim 1. Indeed, Applicant references the instrument of claim 1 in claim 12. However, Applicant does not further elaborate on the structural nature of the instrument in claims 12-15. Rather, Applicant presents specific computing device functions that are unlikely to turn up during the search for the structure of a rotatable polarizer. As to Applicant’s second argument, the examiner noted in the restriction requirement that a rotatable polarizer can be used for exposure control and for scene brightness determination. A rotatable polarizer having the structure of claim 1 is not the sine qua non for determination of boundaries of a display within a camera’s/polarizer’s field of view. That rotatable polarizer is more than sufficient to perform exposure control and scene brightness determination, which can be associated with any captured scene. The examiner submits that these ancillary uses for the rotatable polarizer evidence a material distinction between Invention A and B.
For the reasons above, the arguments presented by Applicant do not persuade the examiner to withdraw the restriction requirement with respect to claims 12-15 and 20-22. Therefore, it is made final. However, the examiner withdraws the restriction requirement with respect to claims 17-19 on the condition that any additional amendments to claims 17-19 do not require search outside the scope of search for the limitations of claims 1-11–that is, that amendments to claims 17-19 generally remain commensurate with amendments to claims 1-11. Accordingly, claims 12-16 and 20-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-11 and 17-19 will examined on their merits.
IV. Claim Interpretation
The requirement that the instrument provide strategic cross-polarization in the preamble of claims 1 and 17 will not be granted patentable weight. According to MPEP 2111.02, if the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is 'necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality' to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim." See, also, Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). However, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes at 1305. MPEP 2111.02 (I) continues: Any terminology in the preamble that limits the structure of the claimed invention must be treated as a claim limitation. See, also, Corning Glass Works V. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the application "to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "extraneous" limitations from the specification." Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801.
Here, the examiner submits that strategic cross-polarization is pure intended use of the rotatable polarizer. The structural components, inner and outer housings, capstan, and motor, are presented as elements necessary to accomplish polarizer rotation. Those elements by themselves are largely unrelated to the cross-polarization that is accomplished using the analysis of captured image data detailed in claims 12-15 and 20-22. Accordingly, the examiner submits that the instrument’s use for strategic cross-polarization does not limit claims 1 and 17.
V. Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: In claim 8, Applicant introduces a gear assembly including a first gear connected to the polarizer and a second gear that is connected to the motor and that drives the first gear. Applicant then introduces an electromagnetic motor assembly in claims 9-11. However, claim 1, on which claims 8 and 9-11 depend, requires that the polarizer be mounted inside an inner housing and that a capstan permits the rotation of the inner housing. Read with claim 1, claims 8 and 9-11 respectively require that both a capstan and gear assembly and both a capstan and an electromagnetic assembly affect rotation of the polarizer. The specification does not support a single embodiment with both a capstan and a gear assembly or both a capstan and electromagnetic motor assembly. Rather, the specification frames rotation by a capstan, a gear assembly, and electromagnetism as different embodiments. On p. 15, para. [0032], the specification states that “[t]he functionality of motorized cross-polarizer 130 is achieved by rotating the polarizer 503, and the [capstan] method presented above is one way to achieve this functionality. Another embodiment of motorized cross-polarizer 130 involves placing the polarizer inside of a machined gear assembly and having the electric motor turn this gear assembly. This can be achieved by mounting the polarizer mounting the polarizer on the inside of a gear (e.g. spur gear) and utilize another gear (e.g. spurgear [sic]) driven by the electric motor to turn this polarizer gear assembly.” Paragraph [0032] continues: “A third embodiment of motorized cross-polarizer 130 involves the polarizer/lens secured inside of a rotating assembly, similar to the embodiment presented in the drawing, but instead of using an ordinary electric motor to turn the rotating assembly, an electromagnet can be used as the motor to rotate the polarized lens.” In the third embodiment, the specification makes clear that the electromagnet handles ultimate rotation of the inner housing. That is, the electromagnet does not rotate the pulley that, in turn, rotates the capstan.
Since the gear assembly and electromagnet embodiments are mutually exclusive of the capstan embodiment, claims 8-11 will not receive prior art rejections. To overcome this objection, Applicant can introduce the capstan in a dependent claim or cancel claims 8-11.
VI. Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2, the examiner believes that “one” or some other number should be inserted between “at least” and “permanent magnet.”
VII. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
A. Claims 1,5-7, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Chinese publication of Chen et al. (CN 111246074 A) in view of Au et al. (US 2014/0128849 A1)
Please refer to the attached translation of Chen et al. for the cited page and line numbers below as they differ from the original Chinese document.
As to claim 1, Chen et al. teaches a motorized
an outer housing (Fig. 20, bracket “11” and cover plate “15”);
an inner housing (Fig. 20, driven gear “1422”), mounted inside the outer housing (Fig. 21), the inner housing being mounted to permit rotation of the inner housing relative to the outer housing (p. 11, lines 6 and 7); and
a polarizer (Fig. 20, polarizing element “13”), mounted inside the inner housing (Fig. 21), the polarizer being mounted to permit rotation of the polarizer in tandem with the inner housing (p. 12, lines 5-12).
As illustrated in Fig. 20, the polarizing element of Chen et al. is driven by a gear set mounted inside the outer housing. That is, the reference fails to disclose that the instrument includes a capstan that is mounted inside the outer housing to permit rotation of the inner housing relative to the outer housing and a motor that is connected to the capstan for rotating the inner housing. However, being reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the instant inventor, Au et al. discloses a medical instrument (Fig. 3, instrument “300”) including a capstan (Fig. 3, capstan “235”) connected to and controlling rotation of a steering section (Fig. 3, steering section “210”; [0023], lines 7-10). Specifically, first and second tendons (Fig. 3, tendons “221” and “222”) are oppositely wound around the capstan (Fig. 3; [0024], lines 6-9), and a motor (Fig. 3, drive motor “250”) is driven to rotate in opposite directions to selectively pull or release the tendons, thereby causing the steering section to rotate to a desired orientation ([0024], lines 9-17).
In light of the teaching of Au et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the gear assembly of Chen et al.with the capstan configuration disclosed by Au et al. Specifically, rather than a gear housing, Chen’s polarizer is positioned in a rotatable housing similar to Au’s end effector (see Fig. 1 of Au et al.) that is connected to a capstan by first and second oppositely-wound tendons. Through actuation of the motor, the capstan is rotated to either pull or release the first and second tendons to position the rotatable housing and polarizer in a desired position. Since Chen et al. rotates a polarizing element to a predetermined angle, Au’s disclosure would compel one of ordinary to consider the reference’s system as a viable and advantageous solution for rotation of Chen’s polarizer. As Au’s instrument is used in robotic surgery, the reference’s self-antagonistic rotational capstan assembly would allow for Chen’s polarizer to achieve a precise and stable rotation angle while being compact and simple in design.
As to claim 5, Chen et al., as modified by Au et al., teaches the instrument of claim 1, wherein the polarizer comprises a linear polarizer or a circular polarizer (see Chen et al., p. 9, lines 27-29).
As to claim 6, Chen et al., as modified by Au et al., teaches the instrument of claim 1, wherein the polarizer comprises a polarized lens or comprises a polarizer placed over a lens (see Chen et al., Fig. 20, camera “12” inherently with a lens).
As to claim 7, Chen et al., as modified by Au et al., teaches the instrument of claim 1, wherein the motor is an electric motor (see Au et al., [0025], lines 6-9, “…servo…”).
The combination of Chen et al. and Au et al. detailed above in claim 1 forms the basis for the rejections of claims 17-19 that follow.
As to claim 17, Chen et al., as modified by Au et al., teaches a method for operating an instrument
applying a first torque to a capstan about which the first tendon is winded (see Au et al., [0024], lines 9-12; [0025], line 1);
simultaneously loosening the second tendon which is winded about the capstan in a direction opposite the first tendon (see Au et al., [0024], lines 12-15; [0025], line 1); and
simultaneously rotating the polarizer to which the first and second tendons are both attached, in the first direction (see Chen et al., p. 12, lines 5-12).
As to claim 18, Chen et al., as modified by Au et al., teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising:
applying a second torque to a capstan about which the second tendon is winded;
simultaneously loosening the first tendon which is winded about the capstan in a direction opposite the second tendon; and
simultaneously rotating the polarizer to which the first and second tendons are both attached, in the second direction (see Chen, p. 12, lines 5-12; see Au et al., [0023], lines 7-10).
As to claim 19, Chen et al., as modified by Au et al., teaches he method of claim 18, wherein the first direction is clockwise and the second direction is counterclockwise (see Au et al., [0023], lines 7-10; {Although lines 9-15 of para. [0024] describe counterclockwise rotation, the reference is clear that both counterclockwise and clockwise rotations can be performed. The first and second tendons, the first and second directions, and counterclockwise and clockwise rotation can be arbitrarily mapped to the Au’s disclosure such that the claim limitations are satisfied.}).
B. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 111246074 A) in view of Au et al. (US 2014/0128849 A1) and further in view of Lambrecht et al. (US 2024/0149438 A1)
As to claim 2, Chen et al., as modified by Au et al., teaches the instrument of claim 1. The claim differs from Chen et al., as modified by Au et al. in that it requires that the inner housing includes a hook-end attachment. However, also being reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the instant inventor, Lambrecht et al. discloses a medical instrument including a capstan (Fig. 8A, capstan “640”) about which two cables are wrapped (Fig. 8A, cables “636” and “676”). The capstan includes a slotted terminal at each of two distal ends of the capstan (Fig. 8A, groove terminals “649a” and “649c”), where the ends of the cables are fixed ([0081], lines 1-10; [0103]; {The examiner interprets the claimed hook-end attachment as a slot as defined in para. [0030] of the specification and submits that Lambrecht’s tubular groove terminal constitutes a slot.}). In light of the teaching of Lambrecht et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to fix the ends of the tendons of Chen et al., as modified by Au et al., to slotted terminals on the rotatable polarizer housing, like those disclosed by Lambrecht et al., because they would prevent slippage of the cable during rotation of the housing as Lambrecht et al. notes in para. [0081].
As to claim 3, Chen et al., as modified by Au et al. and Lambrecht et al., teaches the instrument of claim 2, further comprising:
a first tendon, winded on the capstan, routed clockwise around the inner housing, and affixed to the hook-end attachment (see Lambrecht et al., Fig. 8A, groove terminal “849a”; [0081], lines 1-5); and
a second tendon, winded on the capstan, routed counterclockwise around the inner housing, and affixed to the hook-end attachment (see Lambrecht et al., Fig. 8A, groove terminal “849c”; [0081], lines 1-5).
C. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 111246074 A) in view of Au et al. (US 2014/0128849 A1) in view of Lambrecht et al. (US 2024/0149438 A1) and further in view of Moore et al. (US # 6,020,875)
As to claim 4, Chen et al., as modified by Au et al. and Lambrecht et al., teaches the instrument of claim 3. The claim differs from Chen et al., as modified by Au et al. and Lambrecht et al., in that it requires that a pulley, attached to an output shaft of the motor, is rotationally coupled to the polarizer by the first and second tendons.
Being further pertinent to the problem faced by the instant inventor, Moore et al. discloses a pulley-capstan transmission system (Fig. 3) in which a motor (Fig. 3, actuator “24”) directly rotates a pulley (Fig. 3, pulley “36”) around which a cable is wrapped (Fig. 3, cable “50”). Rotation of the pulley then causes the cable to rotate a capstan (Fig. 3, capstan “38”; col. 9, lines 3-6). In light of the teaching of Moore et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to attach the motor shaft of Au et al. to the pulley “344” (Fig. 3), where rotation of the pulley causes rotation of the capstan and tendon pull and release. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this modification would further increase the tension of Au’s tendons, preventing slippage and leading to precise rotation of the polarizer housing.
VIII. Additional Pertinent Prior Art
Regarding claim 8, the examiner directs Applicant to Chen et al., who discloses that a gear assembly including a first gear that connects to a motor and second gear, where rotation of the first gear by the motor causes rotation of the second gear. Regarding claims 9-11, Alston, Jr. (US 2023/0086081 A1) discloses an optical device (Fig. 1B, EPOD “100”) comprising a stator (Fig. 1B, stator “115”) and rotor (Fig. 1B, rotator “105”). The stator includes a plurality of electromagnets (Fig. 1B, electromagnetic coils “120”) that are energized to interact with a plurality of permanent magnets on the rotor (Fig. 1B, magnetic sources “110”; [0024], lines 4-7), causing rotation of the rotor relative to the stator ([0022]). Regarding claim 16, the examiner directs Applicant to Au et al., who discloses a plurality of tense springs connected between a static surface and a capstan. With respect to the specific claim limitations of claim 16, the springs of payload system “240” of Fig. 6 can be read as the elastic cords; the capstan can be read as the mounting surface; and the surface opposite to the capstan to which the opposite ends of the elastic cords are connected can be read as the mechanically damped plate.
IX. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)272-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
3/17/2026