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 .
Claims 1-2, 2-10, 13-14, and 21-24 are currently pending in the present application.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 13-14 are currently amended; claims 3, 11, 12, and 15-20 have been canceled by the applicant; and claims 21-24 are new.
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 08 June 2026 has been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of the new rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the limitation “the endoscope” in line 9 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
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 1-2, 4-10, 13-14, and 21-24 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.
Re: claim 1, the meaning of the limitation “chassis” in at least line 2 remains unclear. While the term “chassis” appears in the specification, the term does not appear to refer to any of the numbered components that are illustrated in the figures that comprise the cleaning apparatus 100. Moreover, the term “chassis” is used in conjunction with element 202 as part of the cleaning apparatus calibration device, but not in conjunction with an imaging element cleaning apparatus, to which claim 1 is directed. Attempting to utilize the term “chassis” as comprising an elongated body and a user interface body, which are components in the imaging element cleaning apparatus while also simultaneously referring to a “chassis” as being a cleaning apparatus calibration device renders the term confusing and unclear. It is respectfully suggested that in place of the term “chassis” in the claim, use one the following suggested phrases: “An apparatus, comprising an imaging element cleaning apparatus comprising an elongated body and a user interface body…” or “An imagining element cleaning apparatus comprising: an elongated body and a user interface body…” or similar language.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “first engagement surface” in at least lines 8-9 and 12-13 is unclear. The term does not appear anywhere within the written portion of the specification, nor is there an element in any of the present figures that is clearly identifiable as being a “first engagement surface.”
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “rotational positioning surface” in at least line 17 is unclear. The term does not appear anywhere within the written portion of the specification, nor is there an element in any of the present figures that is clearly identifiable as being a “rotational positioning surface.”
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “ second engagement surface” in at least lines 17-18 is unclear. The term does not appear anywhere within the written portion of the specification, nor is there an element in any of the present figures that is clearly identifiable as being a “second engagement surface.”
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “jointly defined by a position of the rotational positioning surface on the user interface body and a position of the second engagement surface of the endoscope thereon” is unclear. It is not clear as to what element (i.e., the user interface body, the rotational positioning surface, the second engagement surface, or some other element) is being jointly defined by the two recited positions.
Re: claims 2, 4-10, 13-14, and 21-24, because they depend upon claim 1, they are likewise allowed.
Re: claim 2, the meaning of the limitation, the meaning of the limitation “rotational positioning surface”. The term does not appear anywhere within the written portion of the specification, nor is there an element in any of the present figures that is clearly identifiable as being a “rotational positioning surface.”
Re: claims 4-7, because they depend upon claim 2, they are likewise rejected.
Re: claim 6, the meaning of the limitation “first engagement surface” is unclear. The term does not appear anywhere within the written portion of the specification, nor is there an element in any of the present figures that is clearly identifiable as being a “first engagement surface.”
Re: claim 7, because it depends upon claim 6, it is likewise rejected.
Re: claim 8, the meaning of the limitation “first engagement surface” is unclear. The term does not appear anywhere within the written portion of the specification, nor is there an element in any of the present figures that is clearly identifiable as being a “first engagement surface.”
Prior Art Rejections
Although the examiner has attempted to construe and interpret the claimed invention, the claims are replete with indefinite limitations that prevent a thorough search of the prior art based upon any recognizable technical features and limitations in the art (see MPEP § 2173.06(II): "where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art”). From what can be understood of the claimed invention, the following prior art, either alone or in combination, appears to disclose the claimed invention: Gilkey (US 20230309809) and Idelson (US 20210228070).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-T & Th-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM 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, 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 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights