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 .
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 12 – 14, 27 - 29 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 12 & 27, line 2 recites “IC sensors”. It is not clear the meaning of “IC sensor”. The Examiner suggests adding the description for the “IC sensors” to clarify the claim.
Regarding claim 13, 14, 28, 29, these are rejected for the same reason as in claim 12 and 27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 - 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wissmar (US 20140078694).
Regarding claim 1, Wissmar discloses an elongated device, comprising:
a plurality of serially connected links (the links 2, Fig. 4a), forming a bendable section (the bending structure in Fig. 4); and
a flexible printed circuit (flexible circuit board 3 or 3b in Fig. 12a) having at least one sensor (sensor 29, Fig. 11 and other sensors 32, 33) attached therein, the FPC is assembled on the links across the bendable section.
Regarding claim 2, Wissmar discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Wissmar further discloses the links include a window (the opening for inserting the sensor 29 into the links) to allow the sensor to be inserted inwardly into a corresponding link.
Regarding claim 3, Wissmar discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Wissmar further discloses the links are serially connected by hinges (the metallic pins 2a connecting the links, Fig. 5c).
Regarding claim 4, Wissmar discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Wissmar further suggests the FPC is wrapped on the bendable section so that the at least one sensor is positioned on a corresponding link (the flexible circuit board 3 wraps around the links and exposed the sensor 29).
Regarding claim 5, Wissmar discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Wissmar further suggests the FPC include a plurality of sensors (29, 32, 33) along the FPC, and the FPC is installed on the bendable section so that the plurality of sensors are aligned on a straight line (when the locking mechanism 35 is unlocked, as in Fig. 1, the whole structure may lay flat on a straight line).
Regarding claim 6, Wissmar discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Wissmar further suggests the FPC include a plurality of sensors (29, 32, 33) along the FPC, and the FPC is installed on the bendable section so that the plurality of sensors are inserted to windows (the space on the links to accommodate the sensors) in corresponding links of the bendable section.
Regarding claim 7, Wissmar discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Wissmar further suggests the links of the bendable section are formed by removing material from a tube (this is the product claim. The claimed product is the link which is already formed. How the link was formed is irrelevant in the product claim).
Regarding claim 8, Wissmar discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Wissmar further suggests a pitch of winding of the FPC is a link length or a multiple of a link length (the length of the link is approximate to the length of the flexible circuit board; therefore, the pitch of winding of the FPC is a multiple of the link length).
Regarding claim 9, Wissmar discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Wissmar further suggests the FPC comprises conductors that pass over hinges between the links (as the flexible circuit board 3 is passing over the hinges between the links, the internal conductors 3a, Fig 16b, also passing over the hinges between the links).
Regarding claim 10, Wissmar discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Wissmar further suggests the FPC has a plurality of sensors (29, 32, 33) that are positioned in an offset from a plain of hinges between the links (the sensor 29 protruding away from the link 2, Fig. 9).
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 (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.
Claim(s) 15 – 25, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wissmar (US 20140078694), in view of Bailey (US 11921471).
Regarding claim 15, Wissmar discloses an elongated device, comprising:
a standalone subassembly (Fig. 9) comprising:
a bendable section (the bottom side of the structure in Fig. 11);
a flexible printed circuit (the flexible circuit 3) having at least one sensor (sensors 29, 32, 33) attached therein, the FPC is assembled across the bendable section.
Wissmar does not explicitly disclose an outer tube in which the standalone subassembly is threaded.
Bailey suggests the housing surrounding the flexible circuit board (122, Fig. 1) similar to a tube.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide a housing around the circuit board in order to protect the circuit board from the environment.
Regarding claim 16, Wissmar, in view of Bailey, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 15. Wissmar suggests the bendable section includes a window (the space in the link 2 to accommodate the sensor; or the space in Bailey’s housing to accommodate the sensor 110) to allow the sensor to be inserted inwardly into the bendable section.
Regarding claim 17, Wissmar, in view of Bailey, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 15. Wissmar suggests the bendable section includes serially connected links (links 2), wherein the FPC is assembled on the links across the bendable section (Fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 18, Wissmar, in view of Bailey, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 17. Wissmar suggests the bendable section consists of links serially connected by hinges (the metallic pins 2a connecting the links, Fig. 5c).
Regarding claim 19, Wissmar, in view of Bailey, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 17. Wissmar suggests the FPC is wrapped on the bendable section so that the at least one sensor is positioned on a corresponding link (the sensor 29 is positioned on the link 2, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 20, Wissmar, in view of Bailey, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 15. Wissmar suggests the FPC include a plurality of sensors (29, 32, 33) along the FPC, and the FPC is installed on the bendable section so that the plurality of sensors are aligned on a straight line (when the locking mechanism 35 is unlocked, as in Fig. 1, the whole structure may lay flat on a straight line).
Regarding claim 21, Wissmar, in view of Bailey, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 15. Wissmar further suggests the FPC include a plurality of sensors (29, 32, 33) along the FPC, and the FPC is installed on the bendable section so that the plurality of sensors are inserted to windows (the sensors are in the accommodation space of the links) in of the bendable section.
Regarding claim 22, , Wissmar, in view of Bailey, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 15. Wissmar further suggests the links of the bendable section are formed by removing material from a tube (this is the product claim. The claimed product is the link which is already formed. How the link was formed is irrelevant in the product claim).
Regarding claim 23, , Wissmar, in view of Bailey, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 17. Wissmar further suggests a pitch of winding of the FPC is a link length or a multiple of a link length (the length of the link is approximate to the length of the flexible circuit board; therefore, the pitch of winding of the FPC is a multiple of the link length).
Regarding claim 24, Wissmar discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 17. Wissmar further suggests the FPC comprises conductors that pass over hinges between the links (as the flexible circuit board 3 is passing over the hinges between the links, the internal conductors 3a, Fig 16b, also passing over the hinges between the links).
Regarding claim 25, Wissmar discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 17. Wissmar further suggests the FPC has a plurality of sensors (29, 32, 33) that are positioned in an offset from a plain of hinges between the links (the sensor 29 protruding away from the link 2, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 30, Wissmar discloses a method for assembling an elongated device, comprising:
making a standalone subassembly (Fig. 1) by assembling across a bendable section a FPC (a flexible circuit board 3) having at least one sensor (sensors 29, 32, 33) attached therein.
Wissmar does not explicitly disclose threading the standalone subassembly in an outer tube.
Bailey suggests the housing surrounding the flexible circuit board (122, Fig. 1) similar to a tube.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide a housing around the circuit board in order to protect the circuit board from the environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 26 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 1, a combination of limitations that hinges between the links alternate between perpendicular plains. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 26, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 17, a combination of limitations that hinges between the links alternate between perpendicular plains. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Daniel (US 7618260) discloses a flexible circuit board with several different modules built on, Fig. 1a – 1c.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH B TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, Timothy J Dole can be reached at 571-272-2229. 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.
/BINH B TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848