DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 10/07/2025.
In the filed response, independent claims 1, 8, and 18 have been amended Further, claim 16 has been canceled.
Accordingly, Claims 1-15 and 17-20 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-7, filed 10/07/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. With the incorporation of the allowable subject matter of now canceled claim 16 into independent claims 1, 8, and 18, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of claim 1, and dependent claims 2-7, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons given below. Regarding Claims 8-14, 18, and 20 these are in condition for allowance as further noted below. Lastly, dependent Claims 15 and 19 appear to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which they depend. Thus, Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
2. After having carefully considered amended claim 1, the examiner finds there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the display”. Further, the claim later recites “a display” in the monitoring device of the inspection system. As such, the claim, on its own, is not entirely clear as to whether these refer to the same display or whether these could be different displays altogether. Please see below.
3. Applicant’s remarks regarding the claim objection to claim 15 is acknowledged, however, the examiner respectfully submits the claim still reads “wherein the inspection cable includes an analog-to-digital converter and an image encoder configured to encode data received from the second camera into image data able to be displayed by the display”. Please refer to the objections below which include one other minor issue.
4. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. It is believed that once these issues have been addressed, the Instant Application will be in condition for allowance. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
5. Accordingly, Claims 1-15 and 17-20 have been examined and are pending.
Specification
6. 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. Since the claims are directed to an inspection “cable”, it is recommended that the title be updated to reflect this.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the connection port configured to detachably coupled” (emphasis added), however, it appears this should read as “the connection port configured to be detachably coupled”. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
8. Claim 8 is further objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “into image data able to be displayed by the display” (emphasis added). However, it is believed this should read either as “into image data that is able to be displayed by the display” or “into image data to be displayed by the display”. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
9. Claims 15 and 18 are objected for similar reasons as claim 8 above. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. 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 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “an image encoder configured to encode data received from the image capture device into image data able to be displayed by the display” (emphasis added). As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Later the claim recites “a monitoring device, the monitoring device including a display” (emphasis added). Although the foregoing limitation can be understood as referring to the same display, as suggested in claims 8 and 18, one can also interpret this as having more than one display. Thus, it is not entirely clear as to how many displays are present in the inspection system of claim 1 when considering it on its own. For these reasons, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be unequivocally ascertained.
Regarding claims 2-7, claims 2-7 depend on claim 1 above, and therefore include all of its limitation. For this reason, claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the inspection cable includes an analog-to-digital converter and an image encoder configured to encode data received from the second camera into image data able to be displayed by the display” which can be found in amended claim 8, on which it depends. Claim 17 is also rejected since, claim 17 depends on claim 15 above.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the cable further includes an encoder configured to encode the received digital data” which can be found in amended claim 18, on which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 8-14, 18, and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The art of record, notably Watt et al. US 2009/0196459 A1, Scott et al. US 2008/0151046 A1, and Boehnlein et al. US 7,581,988 B2, hereinafter referred to as Watt, Scott, and Boehnlein, do not reasonably teach and/or suggest, either alone or in combination, all of the disclosed features of the amended claims, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, in particular, “an image encoder configured to encode data received from the image capture device into image data able to be displayed by the display, wherein the image encoder is positioned at the proximal end of the cable” as recited in independent claims 8 and 18. Although relevant, the prior art, mainly Watt, fail to disclose and/or suggest the locations of the foregoing components in the inspection system. For example, fig. 9c of Watt does show a video encoder 46 for encoding image data captured by imager 26, however, this is located in the digital imager housing, which coincides with the distal end of the cable as claimed, i.e. “an image capture device positioned at a distal end of the cable”. As required in the claims, said video encoder 46 would have to be located in the digital display housing at the proximal end of the cable. For these reasons, the art of record is overcome and Claims 8-14, 18, and 20 are in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486