DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/9/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claims 1 and 18 – an inner cavity.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, cited term of “at least one mirror assembly” (line 20) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. This term indicates that claimed invention may have a configuration of comprising only one mirror assembly, which is not taught in instant specification disclosure. Further, claim also cites “a pair of spaced mount apertures”, “a pair of spaced mount openings”, “a pair of ports” and “a pair of reflection optical channels” (line 5-16). It is unclear that how one mirror responds to the pair of spaced mount apertures, the pair of spaced mount openings, the pair of ports and the pair of reflection optical channels.
Claims 2-17 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 18 has same undefined issues as that of claim 1 in 13.
Claims 19-24 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 18 through their dependency from claim 18.
Regarding claims 23, cited term of “the reflection optical channel” (line 3) is indefinite and lacks antecedent. Claim 23 depends on claim 18, but none of the claims specifies “a reflection optical channel”.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howes (US 5528426).
Regarding Claim 1, Howes teaches a beam splitter system configured to be mounted to an ocular module and a microscope module (abstract; figs. 1-4), comprising:
a beam splitter (fig. 2, 10) comprising:
a housing having an upper surface and a lower surface (fig. 2, 16, 14) and defining an inner cavity (fig. 3, cavity for 26A-B), the upper surface defining a pair of spaced mount apertures arranged along a first axis (fig. 2, 20A-B) and the lower surface defining a pair of spaced mount openings arranged along a second axis (fig. 28A-B), wherein the respective first and second axis are positioned in a common view plane such that the respective mount apertures of the housing are positioned in overlying registration with the respective mount openings of the housing (figs. 2-4, 20A-B, 26A-B, 28A-B) and each respective registered mount aperture and mount opening defines an optical pathway that extends along an optical pathway longitudinal axis in the common view plane for light to pass through the respective mount opening, through the inner cavity of the housing, and to exit the respective mount aperture (figs. 2-4, 32A-B, 20A-B, 26A-B, 28A-B).
the housing further defining a pair of ports that are positioned on respective opposing distal ends of the housing (figs. 2-4, 22A-B) and a pair of reflection optical channels extending from the inner cavity of the housing to the respective port of the respective reflection optical channel along a reflective beam axis (fig. 4, 34A-B) that is in the common view plane and at a normal angle with respect to the optical pathway longitudinal axis of an optical pathway (fig. 4, 32A-B, 34A-B);
at least one beam splitter reflector assembly (figs. 2-4, 26A-B),
each reflector assembly comprising: a reflector armature (figs. 2-4, 18) positioned in the common view plane within the interior cavity of the housing and extending inwardly toward a respective optical pathway such that a distal end of the reflector armature can be positioned proximate the optical pathway longitudinal axis of the optical pathway (figs. 2-4, 26A-B, 18, 32A-B) and
a reflector having a reflective surface and an opposed bottom surface (figs. 2-4, reflective surfaces of 26A-B), wherein the bottom surface is mounted to a portion of the distal end of the reflector armature (figs. 2-4, 26A-B, 18) such that the reflective surface of the reflector is oriented at about a 45 degree angle with respect to the optical pathway longitudinal axis of the optical pathway (fig. 4, reflective surfaces of 26A-B and 32A-B).
But in embodiments of figs. 2-4, Howes does not specifically disclose that wherein the beam splitter reflector is a mirror.
However, Howes teaches in col. 3, line 22-29, that “Disposed on the distal plate are the beam splitters 26A and 26B. The beam splitters are depicted as a pair of opposed prisms, but it would also be possible to utilize a single prism, a partially reflective mirror, a pivotable mirror, or any equivalent structure which would partially reflect axial light along a transverse beam path”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beam splitter system of Howes to have mirror assemblies in the beam splitter system, for a purpose of providing of a beam splitter assembly wherein will be free from optical obstruction, the physical mass of the equipment is minimized and the potential electronic and manual failure of a beam block shutter is eliminated (col.2, line 30-40).
Regarding Claims 2-3, Howes teaches the beam splitter system of claim 1, wherein the height between the upper surface and the lower surface is less than about 50 mm; wherein the height between the upper surface and the lower surface is less than about 30 mm (figs. 2-4, 16, 14; --further, choosing the height are merely variations of the disclosure, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding Claim 4, Howes teaches the beam splitter system of claim 1, wherein a portion of the upper surface of the housing surrounding the pair of mount apertures defines an ocular mount that is sized or otherwise configured to allow for the ocular module to be mounted thereto (figs. 2-4, 10, 16, 20A-B; and fig. 1, 10).
Regarding Claim 5, Howes teaches the beam splitter system of claim 1, wherein a portion of the lower surface of the housing surrounding the pair of mount openings can define a microscope mount that is sized or otherwise configured to allow for the microscope module to be mounted thereto (figs. 2-4, 10, 14, 28A-B; and fig. 1, 10).
Regarding Claim 6, Howes teaches the beam splitter system of claim 1, wherein a portion of the housing proximate a respective port can be sized or otherwise configured to allow for an image capture system to be mounted thereto (figs. 2-4, 22A-B, -- lateral viewing ports for cameras).
Regarding Claim 7, Howes teaches the beam splitter system of claim 1, wherein the planar member of the mirror armature has a minimized width relative to the common view plane (figs. 2-4, 18; --further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding Claim 8, Howes teaches the beam splitter system of claim 1, wherein the reflective surface of the mirror is positioned in a reflective plane that is positioned at a 45 degree angle with respect to the reflective beam axis of the reflection optical channel to redirect light impacting the reflective surface to pass along a reflective beam axis through a respective reflection optical channel and into an image capture system (fig. 4, 26A-B, 22A-B, 32A-B, 34A-B).
Regarding Claim 9, Howes teaches the beam splitter system of claim 8, wherein the reflective beam axis is positioned in the common view plane at a right angle to the optical pathway longitudinal axis (fig. 4, 32A-B, 34A-B)..
Regarding Claim 10, Howes teaches the beam splitter system of claim 1, wherein the reflective surface of the mirror is polished (figs. 2-4, 26A-B; col. 3, line 22-29, beam splitters 26A and 26B; a partially reflective mirror, a pivotable mirror; --it is well known in art, mirror surfaces are always polished).
Regarding Claim 11, Howes teaches the beam splitter system of claim 1, wherein the reflective surface of the mirror is substantially free from artifacts (col. 4, line 36-38, wherein said beam splitter is a partially reflective mirror; col. 3, line 22-29, beam splitters 26A and 26B; a partially reflective mirror, a pivotable mirror).
Regarding Claim 12, Howes teaches the beam splitter system of claim 1, wherein reflective surface of the mirror has a circular shape (figs. 2-4, 26A-B; col. 3, line 22-29, beam splitters 26A and 26B; a partially reflective mirror, a pivotable mirror; -- circular shape mirrors are common optical elements in art).
Regarding Claim 13, Howes teaches the beam splitter system of claim 1, wherein a diameter of the mirror is minimized to reduce the effective surface area of the reflective surface, and wherein the diameter of the mirror is less than about 7 mm (figs. 2-4, 26A-B; --further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding Claim 14, Howes teaches the beam splitter system of claim 1, wherein the diameter of the mirror is less than about 4 mm (figs. 2-4, 26A-B; --further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding Claims 15 -17, Howes teaches the beam splitter system of claim 1, wherein the beam splitter generates an amount of visual occlusion that is less than 20%; wherein the beam splitter generates a total aperture occlusion that is less than 20%; wherein the beam splitter generates a total aperture occlusion that is less than 15% (figs. 2-4, 20A-B, 26A-B, 28A-B; --further, these portions of claims are of function/property claims. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Howes is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected that the aperture/visual occlusion functions/properties provided by Howes has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding Claim 18, Howes teaches a beam splitter configured to be mounted to an ocular module and a microscope module (abstract; figs. 1-4), comprising:
a housing having an upper surface and a lower surface (fig. 2, 16, 14) and defining an inner cavity (fig. 3, cavity for 26A-B), the upper surface defining a pair of spaced mount apertures (fig. 2, 20A-B) and the lower surface defining a pair of spaced mount openings (fig. 28A-B), wherein the respective pair of spaced mount apertures and spaced mount openings are positioned in a common view plane such that the respective mount apertures of the housing are positioned in overlying registration with the respective mount openings of the housing (figs. 2-4, 20A-B, 26A-B, 28A-B) and each respective registered mount aperture and mount opening defines an optical pathway that extends along an optical pathway longitudinal axis for light to pass through the respective mount opening, through the inner cavity of the housing, and to exit the respective mount aperture (figs. 2-4, 32A-B, 20A-B, 26A-B, 28A-B).
at least one beam splitter reflector assembly (figs. 2-4, 26A-B),
each reflector assembly comprising: a reflector armature (figs. 2-4, 18) positioned within the interior cavity of the housing and extending inwardly toward a respective optical pathway such that a distal end of the reflector armature can be positioned proximate the optical pathway longitudinal axis of the optical pathway (figs. 2-4, 26A-B, 18, 32A-B) and
a reflector having a reflective surface and an opposed bottom surface (figs. 2-4, reflective surfaces of 26A-B), wherein the bottom surface is mounted to a portion of the distal end of the reflector armature (figs. 2-4, 26A-B, 18) such that the reflective surface of the reflector is oriented at about a 45 degree angle with respect to the optical pathway longitudinal axis of the optical pathway (fig. 4, reflective surfaces of 26A-B and 32A-B).
But in embodiments of figs. 2-4, Howes does not specifically disclose that wherein the beam splitter reflector is a mirror.
However, Howes teaches in col. 3, line 22-29, that “Disposed on the distal plate are the beam splitters 26A and 26B. The beam splitters are depicted as a pair of opposed prisms, but it would also be possible to utilize a single prism, a partially reflective mirror, a pivotable mirror, or any equivalent structure which would partially reflect axial light along a transverse beam path”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beam splitter system of Howes to have mirror assemblies in the beam splitter system, for a purpose of providing of a beam splitter assembly wherein will be free from optical obstruction, the physical mass of the equipment is minimized and the potential electronic and manual failure of a beam block shutter is eliminated (col.2, line 30-40).
Howes further teaches that wherein the beam splitter generates a total aperture occlusion that is less than 20% (figs. 2-4, 20A-B, 26A-B, 28A-B; --further, this portion of claim is of function/property claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Howes is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected that the aperture occlusion function/property provided by Howes has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding Claim 19, Howes teaches the beam splitter of claim 18, wherein the height between the upper surface and the lower surface is less than about 50 mm (figs. 2-4, 16, 14; --further, choosing the height are merely variations of the disclosure, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding Claim 20, Howes teaches the beam splitter of claim 18, wherein a portion of the upper surface of the housing surrounding the pair of mount apertures defines an ocular mount that is sized or otherwise configured to allow for the ocular module to be mounted thereto (figs. 2-4, 10, 16, 20A-B; and fig. 1, 10), and wherein a portion of the lower surface of the housing surrounding the pair of mount openings can define a microscope mount that is sized or otherwise configured to allow for the microscope module to be mounted thereto (figs. 2-4, 10, 14, 28A-B; and fig. 1, 10).
Regarding Claim 21, Howes teaches the beam splitter of claim 18, wherein the housing further defines a pair of ports that are positioned on respective opposing distal ends of the housing (figs. 2-4, 22A-B) and further defines a pair of reflection optical channels extending from the inner cavity of the housing to the respective port of the respective reflection optical channel along a reflective beam axis (fig. 4, 34A-B) that is in the common view plane and at a normal angle with respect to the optical pathway longitudinal axis of an optical pathway (fig. 4, 32A-B, 34A-B).
Regarding Claim 22, Howes teaches the beam splitter of claim 21, wherein a portion of the housing proximate a respective port can be sized or otherwise configured to allow for an image capture system to be mounted thereto (figs. 2-4, 22A-B, -- lateral viewing ports for cameras; see col. 3, line 14-22).
Regarding Claim 23, Howes teaches the beam splitter of claim 18, wherein the reflective surface of the mirror is positioned in a reflective plane that is positioned at a 45 degree angle with respect to the reflective beam axis of the reflection optical channel to redirect light impacting the reflective surface through a respective reflection optical channel and into an image capture system (fig. 4, 26A-B, 34A-B, 22A-B), and
wherein the reflective beam axis is positioned in the common view plane at a right angle to the optical pathway longitudinal axis (fig. 4, 32A-B, 34A-B).
Regarding Claim 24, Howes teaches the beam splitter of claim 18, wherein a diameter of the mirror is minimized to reduce the effective surface area of the reflective surface, and wherein the diameter of the mirror is less than about 7 mm (figs. 2-4, 26A-B; --further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights