DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the After-Final Amendment filed on 03/17/2026 and is being filed as a second Non-Final for the reasons presented below.
In the filed response, claims 1, 8, 17, and 18 have been amended, where claims 1, 8, and 18 are independent claims. Further, claims 15, 16, and 19 have been canceled.
Please note that Claims 8-14 and 17 remain in condition for allowance.
Accordingly, Claims 1-7, 18, and 20 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-8, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The same applies to the rejections of Claims 15, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Therefore, both rejections have been withdrawn. However, based on updated searches and further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Watt et al. US 2009/0196459 A1, and in further view of new prior art Rovegno US 2010/0238278 A1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Watt and Rovegno, respectively. For this reason, this office action is submitted as a Non-Final. Please see examiner’s responses below. The examiner left a brief message on April 07, 2026 for Applicant’s Representative regarding this matter.
2. The art of record was previously shown to not teach and/or suggest an image encoder being positioned at the proximal end of the cable as required for e.g. in claim 1. Watt’s encoder (46), in particular, is positioned at the distal end of the cable, versus the proximal end, as required (see fig. 9C). However, Rovegno does appear to teach and/or suggest this feature, i.e. “wherein the image encoder is positioned at the proximal end of the cable” as recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claims 8 and 18. In the context of endoscopic industrial control (e.g. ¶0001), Rovegno discloses a multicore electrical cable housed in a flexible umbilical cable, where attached on a distal end is a camera and on a proximal end, the cable is equipped with a multi-pin electrical connector allowing the camera to be connected to an operating equipment unit that has a visualization screen (e.g. ¶0006). Figure 7, in particular, illustrates an operating circuit EXC3 within unit EXD3 that interfaces with a computer (¶0120-¶0121) and videoendoscopic equipment. An analog video signal 23 is transmitted via multicore cable 12, 15 (housed in umbilical cable 11) to circuit CDV which includes an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), a video compression circuit VCPC, and a digital video encoder VNCV (see for e.g. ¶0116-¶0118). As such, the received analog video signal is converted to a digital video signal 67 which is further compressed where it can then be sent to the computer for display purposes. Unlike in Watt (e.g. fig. 9B), the electrical arrangement in Rovegno’s videoendoscopic system does not explicitly show the digital-analog converter (D/A) before transmitting the analog video signal in multicore cable 12, 15. However, since Rovegno does show the received analog video signal at the proximal end of said cable which can interface with a computer, Rovegno’s teachings are deemed relevant. For these reasons, which are further discussed below, the examiner respectfully submits that Watt and Rovegno, either alone or in combination, reasonably teach and/or suggest the disclosed features of independent claims 1 and 18, given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Please note, claim 8 and its dependent claims remain in condition for allowance (see below for details).
3. Applicant’s response and amendment are acknowledged regarding the objection to the specification (i.e. title of the invention). As such, the objection is withdrawn.
4. Applicant’s response and amendment are acknowledged regarding the claim objections. As such, the objections are withdrawn.
5. The Examiner is available to further discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
6. In light of the foregoing, Claims 1-7, 18, and 20 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears the second instance of 'display', i.e. “the monitoring device including a display” should read “the monitoring device including the display”. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
8. Claim 1 is further objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “analog data” on line 7. However it is believed the second instance of “analog data” on line 9 should read “the analog data”.
9. Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears there should be an “and” before “an image encoder configured to encode…”.
10. Claim 18 is further objected to for the same reason as claim 1 with respect to “analog data”. Please check and update the second instance of “analog data” on line 8 to read “the analog data”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watt et al. US 2009/0196459 A1, in view of Rovegno US 2010/0238278 A1, hereinafter referred to as Watt and Rovegno, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Watt discloses and/or suggests “An inspection system [See the remote inspection device in figs. 2A-2B and associated text (e.g. ¶0020)], the system comprising: a cable [Flexible cable 22. Same citations above.] including: an image capture device positioned at a distal end of the cable [Digital imaging device 26 is embedded in digital imager housing 24 which in turn is coupled to a distal end of flexible cable 22 (¶0021-¶0022)], wherein the image capture device is configured to output digital data [Said digital imaging device 26 outputs digital image data]; a digital to analog circuit at the distal end of the cable and in electronic communication with the image capture device [See the D/A in fig. 9B with respect to outputting captured digital image data as an analog signal for transmission], wherein the digital to analog circuit is configured to convert digital data from the image capture device into analog data [Same citations as above]; an analog to digital circuit at a proximal end of the cable and in communication with the digital to analog circuit [Fig. 9B also shows an A/D in the digital display housing that can convert the received analog signal back into digital data for display. As shown, the A/D interfaces with cable 22.], wherein the analog to digital circuit is configured to convert analog data received from the digital to analog circuit to received digital data [Same citations as above]; an image encoder configured to encode data received from the image capture device into image data that is able to be displayed by [[the]] a display [See video encoder 46 in fig. 9C which can receive image data from imager 26. This can then be sent to digital display housing 28 where the data can be displayed.], wherein the image encoder is positioned at the proximal end of the cable [However, video encoder 46 is shown to be located at the distal end of the cable, i.e. inside digital imager housing. To illustrate an image encoder at the proximal end of the cable, please see Rovegno below]; and a monitoring device [Please see digital display housing 28 in fig. 9B that houses a digital video display, i.e. a monitoring device], the monitoring device including a display and a connector [Please refer to citation above with respect to digital display housing 28 that houses a digital video display (see fig. 2B). As to a ‘connector’ and giving the BRI, Watt’s discusses connection mechanisms 104 (e.g. ¶0017)], the connector configured to electrically, mechanically, and detachably interface with the proximal end of the cable [See fig. 2B regarding an electrical, mechanical and detachable interface]; wherein the monitoring device is configured to display images captured by the image capture device in response to receiving the received digital data [See example views of pipe interiors using the remote inspection device of Watt (e.g. figs. 7A-7B]. Although Watt is deemed relevant art which describes various processing techniques for a remote inspection device that can be used for inspecting pipe interiors (e.g. abstract and fig. 7), Watt’s encoder is positioned at the distal end of the cable, versus the proximal end, as required. This arrangement, however, is depicted in the work of Rovegno, which is in the same or similar field of endeavor. [In the context of endoscopic industrial control (¶0001), fig. 7 depicts operating circuit EXC3 within unit EXD3 which interfaces a computer (¶0120-¶0121) with videoendoscopic equipment. Analog video signal 23 is transmitted via umbilical cable 12 to circuit CDV which includes an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), a video compression circuit VCPC, and a digital video encoder VNCV (¶0116-¶0118). Compressed digital video signal 67 can then be sent to a computer for display. ¶0116 also describes connectors 60, 61 for connecting to the computer. Please see examiner’s response #2 for further details.] Unlike Watt, the electrical arrangement in Rovegno’s videoendoscopic system does not explicitly show the digital-analog converter (D/A) before transmission of the analog video signal via multicore cable 12, 15 (housed in umbilical cable 11). However, since Rovegno does illustrate the received analog video signal at the proximal end of the umbilical cable which interfaces with a computer, Rovegno’s teachings are deemed relevant. Watt discloses and/or suggests the claimed invention except for the positioning of the encoder which is shown to be at the distal end of the cable. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the encoder at the proximal end of the cable, as shown in Rovegno, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 C.C.P.A. 1950). Through Rovegno’s teachings, an analog video signal can be converted to a digitally compressed video signal that can be further processed and displayed for viewing purposes (e.g. ¶0006).
Regarding claim 2, Watt and Rovegno teach/suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Watt further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the cable further includes an encoder configured to encode the received digital data.” [See video encoder 46 in fig. 9c]. The work of Rovegno from the same or similar field of endeavor also teaches and/or suggests the aforementioned feature [See for e.g. fig. 7 with reference to ¶0118] The motivation for combining Watt and Rovegno has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of claim 1.
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watt, in view of Rovegno, and in further view of Scott et al. US 2008/0151046 A1, hereinafter referred to as Scott.
Regarding claim 3, Watt and Rovegno teach/suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although Watt does not explicitly teach having a length of at least 75 feet from the proximal end to the distal end in flexible cable 22, the cable extensions discussed in for e.g. ¶0027-¶0028 can lengthen said cable accordingly, and extending a cable to a specified length would be within the level of skill in the art. Further, the motorized cable reel (208) shown in ¶0035 and fig. 2C suggest said cable can extend to an appropriate length for performing remote inspection of pipe interiors. As such, Watt is deemed relevant. Nonetheless, in the spirit of compact prosecution, and also recognizing that Rovegno does not address the claimed cable length requirement, Scott from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the cable measures at least 75 feet from the proximal end to the distal end.” [See ¶0026, where insertion tube 112 generally has a length from distal end 113 to proximal end 115 in the range of about 5-100 feet. The upper end of said range satisfies “at least 75 feet”] Recognizing Scott’s remote viewing device (e.g. abstract and fig. 1), it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to explicitly show that a flexible cable used in a remote inspection device, such as the one in Watt (22) or Rovegno’s umbilical cable 11, can have a length in a range of lengths that depend on the intended usage environment and/or the intended usage purpose of said device (¶0026). With Scott’s device, a wider range of temperature environments can be tolerated while operating its light sources at or near full power without causing harm to its components (e.g. ¶0008).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of claim 3.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watt, in view of Rovegno, and in further view of Boehnlein et al. US 7,581,988 B2, hereinafter referred to as Boehnlein.
Regarding claim 4, Watt and Rovegno teach/suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Watt further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the system further includes a cover for the image capture device [See digital imager housing 24 that covers imager 26 (e.g. figs. 2A-2B and 9A-9C)], the cover detachably connected to the image capture device.” [Although not explicitly indicated, providing a detachable housing/cover to a digital imager would be within the level of skill in the art so as to provide a means of removing said housing in order to for e.g. access and/or replace said imager. Rovegno also does not address this feature] Nonetheless, in the spirit of compact prosecution, Boehnlein from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “the cover detachably connected to the image capture device.” [Given the BRI of a detachably connected cover, please see Boehnlein’s remote inspection device (figs. 2A-2B and associated text) with respect to imager housing 14 and imaging device 22, where said device (and lens) may be replaced (col. 4 lines 48-50), suggesting that the housing can be removed to access said device] Given Boehnlein’s teachings of a remote inspection device (e.g. abstract and fig. 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inspection systems of both Watt and Rovegno to include detachable couplings for achieving modularity (col. 8 lines 39-41), thus leading to a more simplified, inexpensive and versatile inspection device that can be marketed to the general public (col 1 lines 27-32 and lines 40-42).
Regarding claim 5, Watt, Rovegno, and Boehnlein teach/suggest all the limitations of claim 4 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Watt and Rovegno do not explicitly describe the features of claim 5, Boehnlein from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the cover includes a first portion and a second portion, the first portion and the second portion configured to mechanically couple to each other and the image capture device.” [Given the BRI of the foregoing features, please refer to figs. 2A-2B which depict a disassembled imaging device 22, where the illustrated components can be construed as first and second portions that mechanically couple to enclose said device] The motivation for combining Watt, Rovegno, and Boehnlein has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 8-14 and 17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 8 is deemed allowable since the art of record (notably Watt and Rovegno) do not reasonably teach and/or suggest, either alone or in combination, all of the recited features given their BRI. In particular, the art of record is silent with respect to the arrangement of the first and second cameras as claimed when considering the claim as a whole. No other prior art appears to address these features. In other words, the art of record is silent with respect to “An inspection device, the inspection device comprising: a housing, the housing including a receptacle configured to receive a removable, rechargeable battery pack; a connection port, the connection port configured to be detachably coupled with one of a first camera and an inspection cable having a second camera coupled to a distal end; wherein a proximal end of the inspection cable includes a connector for detachably coupling with the connection port; a display configured to display images captured by the first camera and the second camera; wherein in response to the first camera being interfaced with the connection port, the display displays images captured by the first camera; and wherein in response to the connector of the cable being interfaced with the connection port, the display displays images captured by the second camera, and wherein the inspection cable includes an analog-to-digital converter and an image encoder positioned at a proximal end of the inspection cable configured to encode data received from the second camera into image data that is able to be displayed by the display.” As such, the art of record is overcome and Claims 8-14 and 17 remain allowed.
7. Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
6. (Original) The system of claim 5, wherein the cover is constructed out of polycarbonate.
7. (Original) The system of claim 5, wherein the cover includes a silicone tube for covering the image capture device and the distal end of the cable.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights