DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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 and 3-9 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.
Claim 1, line 2 recites “targeted blocking of individual functions, targeted enabling of individual functions or both.” The claim is indefinite because while claim 1 begins by reciting an apparatus, claim 1 further includes a method step of using the apparatus.
A single claim that includes both an apparatus and a method of using the apparatus is indefinite (See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)). It is unclear if infringement would occur when the “operating unit” is created as an apparatus or when the “operating unit” is used by performing targeted blocking of individual functions, targeted enabling of individual functions or both.
The rejection may be overcome by deleting the method step.
For examining purposes, the step limitation will be treated as an intended result limitation (i.e., an element for targeting the blocking of individual functions, an element for targeting the enabling of individual function, or an element for targeting both blocking and enabling of an individual function).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the actuator" in line 1, and the limitation “the joystick” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the actuation element " in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the actuation element" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the actuation element" in lines 1, 3, and 4, and the limitation “the holding element” in lines 1-2, and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the actuation element” in lines 1, 3, and 4, and the limitation “the holding element” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the actuation element” lines 1, 3-4, 5, and 9, and the limitation “the holding element” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the actuation element” in lines 1, 3-4, 5, and 9, and the limitation “the holding element” in lines 1-2, 4, 6, and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, US 2012/0218520 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Inoue), and further in view of Leckenby et al., US 10,394,272 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Leckenby).
As to claim 1, Inoue teaches an operating unit for use with ophthalmological devices (Inoue, Fig. 1, 101, paragraph [0038], “the ophthalmologic apparatus includes… an operation unit 101”), comprising targeted blocking of individual functions, targeted enabling of individual functions or both (Inoue, Figs. 3 and 5, 8b, paragraphs [0056]-[0059], the projection portion 8b blocks the tilt of the joystick 1 when the moving portion 14 comes into contact with the projection portion 8b); and
at least one element configured to block a designated function (Inoue, Figs. 3 and 5, 8b, paragraphs [0056]-[0059], the projection portion 8b blocks the tilt of the joystick 1 when the moving portion 14 comes into contact with the projection portion 8b).
Inoue does not teach the at least one element further configured such that the designated blocked function is enabled by removal of the element.
However, in the same field of endeavor Leckenby teaches an operating unit (Leckenby, Fig. 2, 100, column 2, line 43, “a joystick 100”), comprising targeted blocking of individual functions (Leckenby, Fig. 4, 108, column 3, lines 31-54, when the center lock spring 204 presses the slider 108 in the first extended position a portion of the slider 108 extends over the top of the shoe 206, as depicted in region 402b. With this portion of the slider 108 engaging the top of the shoe 206 in this manner, the shoe 206 is prevented from sliding, thus the joystick 100 is in a centered and locked position by slider 108), targeted enabling of individual functions (Leckenby, Fig. 5, 108, column 3, lines 31-37 and lines 55-66, when the slider 108 has been pressed in to the second depressed position the pressure of the center lock spring 204 is overcome and, as shown in the regions 402a and 402b, no portion of the slider 108 is above the shoe 206 to prevent the shoe from sliding. Thus, the removal of the slider 108 enables the sliding of the shoe 206 and the joystick 100 is free to move) or both (Leckenby, Figs. 4-5, 108, column 3, lines 31-54, slider 108 both blocks and enables the movement of the joystick 100); and
at least one element configured to block a designated function (Leckenby, Fig. 4, 108, column 3, lines 31-54, when the center lock spring 204 presses the slider 108 in the first extended position a portion of the slider 108 extends over the top of the shoe 206, as depicted in region 402b. With this portion of the slider 108 engaging the top of the shoe 206 in this manner, the shoe 206 is prevented from sliding, thus the joystick 100 is in a centered and locked position by slider 108) and further configured such that the designated blocked function is enabled by removal of the element (Leckenby, Fig. 5, 108, column 3, lines 31-37 and lines 55-66, when the slider 108 has been pressed in to the second depressed position the pressure of the center lock spring 204 is overcome and, as shown in the regions 402a and 402b, no portion of the slider 108 is above the shoe 206 to prevent the shoe from sliding. Thus, the removal of the slider 108 enables the sliding of the shoe 206 and the joystick 100 is free to move).
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 operating unit of Inoue with the at least one element further configured such that the designated blocked function is enabled by removal of the element of Leckenby, because doing so permits the movement of the shoe along the shaft as the slider is selectively pressed to extend from one side of the center lock housing to another (Leckenby, column 2, lines 5-10).
As to claim 2, Inoue in view of Leckenby teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Inoue further teaches the operating unit according to claim 1, wherein the operating unit is configured as a joystick (Inoue, Fig. 2, 1, paragraph [0046], “the operation unit 101 includes a joystick 1”); and
the joystick comprises at an upper end thereof an actuator with a press function (Inoue, Fig. 2, 2, paragraph [0046], the joystick 1 includes a measurement button 2), a rotate function (Inoue, Fig. 2, 4, paragraph [0046], the joystick 1 includes a rotating dial 4) or both (Inoue, Fig. 2, 2, 4, paragraph [0046], the joystick 1 includes a measurement button 2 and a rotation dial 4).
As to claim 3, Inoue in view of Leckenby teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Inoue further teaches the operating unit according to claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises an actuation element and a holding element (Inoue, Fig. 3, 2, paragraphs [0047]-[0049], the measurement button 2 is held within the operation member 1), which are both connected to the joystick via a connecting element (Inoue, Fig. 3, 1, paragraphs [0047]-[0049], the joystick shaft 11 is jointed inside the joystick 1, thus the actuation element 2 and holding element 1 are connected to the joystick via a joint).
Inoue does not teach the operating unit wherein a first connection of the actuation element is movable and a second connection of the holding element is rigid.
However, in the same field of endeavor Leckenby teaches the operating unit wherein a first connection of the actuation element is movable (Leckenby, Fig. 2, 216, column 2, lines 66-67, at the first end 201 of the shaft 202, the shaft 202 is retained to a ball 214, such as by one or more fasteners 216) and a second connection of the holding element is rigid (Leckenby, Fig. 2, 104, column 2, lines 64-65, the shaft 202 is retained to the knob 102such as by a fastener 104 at a second end 203 of the shaft 202).
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 operating unit of Inoue wherein a first connection of the actuation element is movable and a second connection of the holding element is rigid of Leckenby, because doing so retains the shaft 202 in desired positions with both the knob 102 and the ball 214 (Leckenby, column 3, lines 17-18).
As to claim 4, Inoue in view of Leckenby teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Inoue further teaches the operating unit according to claim 1, wherein the actuation element has a press function (Inoue, Fig. 2, 2, paragraph [0047], “the measurement button 2 is used as a start button,” thus has a press function) and is configured such that a surface of the actuation element is smooth or presents a rotationally symmetrical structure or depression (Inoue, Fig. 2, 2, paragraph [0046], as shown in figure 2 the measurement button 2 has a smooth structure).
As to claim 5, Inoue in view of Leckenby teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Inoue further teaches the operating unit according to claim 1, wherein the actuation element has a rotate function (Inoue, Fig. 2, 4, paragraph [0047], “the rotating dial 4”) and is configured such that a surface of the actuation element has a radially extending structure (Inoue, Fig. 2, 4, as seen in figure 2 the dial 4 is a radially extending structure), an edge of the actuation element is fluted or both (Inoue, Fig. 2, 4, as seen in figure 2 the dial 4 has a fluted surface).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 6, Inoue teaches the operating unit according to claim 1, wherein the actuation element rests lightly on the holding element (Inoue, Fig. 3, 2, paragraph [0047], the measurement button 2 is placed on the top of the joystick 1),
wherein an element that blocks a designated function is arranged between the actuation element and a holding element (Inoue, Figs. 3 and 5, 8b, paragraphs [0056]-[0059], the projection portion 8b blocks the tilt of the joystick 1 when the moving portion 14 comes into contact with the projection portion 8b, 8b is located between the measurement button 2 and the operating force generation unit 8),
wherein the actuation element has an opening for receiving the element that blocks the rotate function (Inoue, Fig. 3, 8b, paragraph [0046], the projection portion 8b is located in an opening below the recess portion 14a),
while a vertical groove is formed in the holding element (Inoue, Figs. 3 and 4, 15a, paragraph [0052], the groove portion 15a).
Leckenby teaches an operating unit (Leckenby, Fig. 2, 100, column 2, line 43, “a joystick 100”), wherein the actuation element has an opening for receiving, with a precise fit, the element that blocks the rotate function (Leckenby, Fig. 2, 106, 108, column 3, lines 31-37, the slider 108).
However the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the operating unit wherein a rotate function but no press function is available, wherein the element that blocks the rotate function engages into the vertical groove, and wherein removal of the element that blocks the designated function, only the blocked rotate function is enabled in combination with the other limitations of claim 6.
In particular, Inoue teaches a joystick with an actuation element and a holding element wherein a projection portion that is arranged between the actuation element and the holding element blocks the tilt function of the joystick. Although Leckenby teaches a joystick where the actuation element has a housing with a precise fit for the blocking element, there is insufficient structural similarities between Inoue and Leckenby to motivate an ordinary skilled artisan to modify the operating unit wherein a rotate function but no press function is available, wherein the element that blocks the rotate function engages into the vertical groove, and wherein removal of the element that blocks the designated function, only the blocked rotate function is enabled as claimed.
As to claim 7, Inoue teaches the operating unit according to claim 1, wherein the actuation element is connected to the holding element with a spacing (Inoue, Fig. 3, 2, paragraph [0047], the measurement button 2 is placed on the top of the joystick 1), such that a press function and a rotate function are available (Inoue, Fig. 3, 2, paragraphs [0047]-[0048], the measurement button 2 is used in correspondence with the tilting of the operation member 1), wherein an element that blocks the designated function is arranged between the actuation element and a holding element (Inoue, Figs. 3 and 5, 8b, paragraphs [0056]-[0059], the projection portion 8b blocks the tilt of the joystick 1 when the moving portion 14 comes into contact with the projection portion 8b, 8b is located between the measurement button 2 and the operating force generation unit 8), in that the actuation element has an opening to receive the element that blocks the rotate function (Inoue, Fig. 3, 8b, paragraph [0046], the projection portion 8b is located in an opening below the recess portion 14a), while a vertical groove is formed in the holding element (Inoue, Figs. 3 and 4, 15a, paragraph [0052], the groove portion 15a), wherein the length of the groove is dimensioned such that a press function remains available (Inoue, Figs. 3 and 4, 15a, paragraph [0052], the press function of the measurement button 2 is available and the groove portion 15a has a length in the vertical dimension).
Leckenby teaches an operating unit (Leckenby, Fig. 2, 100, column 2, line 43, “a joystick 100”), wherein the actuation element has an opening for receiving, with a precise fit, the element that blocks the rotate function (Leckenby, Fig. 2, 106, 108, column 3, lines 31-37, the slider 108).
However the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the operating unit wherein the element that blocks the rotate function engages into which vertical groove, and wherein removal of the element that blocks a designated function enables the blocked rotate function in combination with the other limitations of claim 7.
In particular, Inoue teaches a joystick with an actuation element and a holding element wherein a projection portion that is arranged between the actuation element and the holding element blocks the tilt function of the joystick. Although Leckenby teaches a joystick where the actuation element has a housing with a precise fit for the blocking element, there is insufficient structural similarities between Inoue and Leckenby to motivate an ordinary skilled artisan to modify the operating unit wherein the element that blocks the rotate function engages into which vertical groove, and wherein removal of the element that blocks a designated function enables the blocked rotate function as claimed.
As to claim 8, Inoue teaches the operating unit according to claim 1, wherein the actuation element is connected to the holding element with a spacing (Inoue, Fig. 3, 2, paragraph [0047], the measurement button 2 is placed on the top of the joystick 1), such that a press function and a rotate function are available (Inoue, Fig. 3, 2, paragraphs [0047]-[0048], the measurement button 2 is used in correspondence with the tilting of the operation member 1), wherein an element that blocks the designated function is arranged between the actuation element and a holding element (Inoue, Figs. 3 and 5, 8b, paragraphs [0056]-[0059], the projection portion 8b blocks the tilt of the joystick 1 when the moving portion 14 comes into contact with the projection portion 8b, 8b is located between the measurement button 2 and the operating force generation unit 8), wherein the actuation element has an opening for receiving the element that blocks a designated function (Inoue, Fig. 3, 8b, paragraph [0046], the projection portion 8b is located in an opening below the recess portion 14a), while a vertical groove is formed in the holding element (Inoue, Figs. 3 and 4, 15a, paragraph [0052], the groove portion 15a).
Leckenby teaches an operating unit (Leckenby, Fig. 2, 100, column 2, line 43, “a joystick 100”), wherein the actuation element has an opening for receiving, with a precise fit, the element that blocks the rotate function (Leckenby, Fig. 2, 106, 108, column 3, lines 31-37, the slider 108).
However the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the operating unit wherein the element that blocks the designated function engages in the vertical groove, wherein the length of the groove is dimensioned such that neither a press function nor a rotate function is available and wherein removal of the element that blocks the designated function, enables the blocked press function and the blocked rotate function in combination with the other limitations of claim 8.
In particular, Inoue teaches a joystick with an actuation element and a holding element wherein a projection portion that is arranged between the actuation element and the holding element blocks the tilt function of the joystick. Although Leckenby teaches a joystick where the actuation element has a housing with a precise fit for the blocking element, there is insufficient structural similarities between Inoue and Leckenby to motivate an ordinary skilled artisan to modify the operating unit wherein the element that blocks the designated function engages in the vertical groove, wherein the length of the groove is dimensioned such that neither a press function nor a rotate function is available and wherein removal of the element that blocks the designated function, enables the blocked press function and the blocked rotate function as claimed.
As to claim 9, Inoue in view of Leckenby teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Inoue further teaches the operating unit according to Claim 1, wherein the actuation element is connected to the holding element with a spacing (Inoue, Fig. 3, 2, paragraph [0047], the measurement button 2 is placed on the top of the joystick 1), such that a press function and a rotate function are available (Inoue, Fig. 3, 2, paragraphs [0047]-[0048], the measurement button 2 is used in correspondence with the tilting of the operation member 1), wherein an element blocks a respective designated function, is arranged between the actuation element and the holding element (Inoue, Figs. 3 and 5, 8b, paragraphs [0056]-[0059], the projection portion 8b blocks the tilt of the joystick 1 when the moving portion 14 comes into contact with the projection portion 8b, 8b is located between the measurement button 2 and the operating force generation unit 8),
wherein the actuation element has an opening for receiving a first element that blocks the rotate function (Inoue, Fig. 3, 8b, paragraph [0046], the projection portion 8b is located in an opening below the recess portion 14a), while a vertical groove is formed in the holding element (Inoue, Figs. 3 and 4, 15a, paragraph [0052], the groove portion 15a).
Leckenby teaches an operating unit (Leckenby, Fig. 2, 100, column 2, line 43, “a joystick 100”), wherein an element blocks a respective designated function, is arranged between the actuation element and the holding element (Leckenby, Fig. 4, 108, column 3, lines 31-54, when the center lock spring 204 presses the slider 108 in the first extended position a portion of the slider 108 extends over the top of the shoe 206, as depicted in region 402b. With this portion of the slider 108 engaging the top of the shoe 206 in this manner, the shoe 206 is prevented from sliding, thus the joystick 100 is in a centered and locked position by slider 108), wherein the actuation element has an opening for receiving, with a precise fit, the element that blocks the rotate function (Leckenby, Fig. 2, 106, 108, column 3, lines 31-37, the slider 108), and wherein, by removal of one or both of the elements that block the designated function, the blocked press function, the blocked rotate function or both are enabled (Leckenby, Fig. 5, 108, column 3, lines 31-37 and lines 55-66, when the slider 108 has been pressed in to the second depressed position the pressure of the center lock spring 204 is overcome and, as shown in the regions 402a and 402b, no portion of the slider 108 is above the shoe 206 to prevent the shoe from sliding. Thus, the removal of the slider 108 enables the sliding of the shoe 206 and the joystick 100 is free to move).
However the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the operating unit wherein a second element that blocks the press function is configured as a spacer in order to close a distance between the actuation element and the holding element, wherein the first element that blocks the rotate function engages in the vertical groove in combination with the other limitations of claim 9.
In particular, Inoue teaches a joystick with an actuation element and a holding element wherein a projection portion that is arranged between the actuation element and the holding element blocks the tilt function of the joystick. Although Leckenby teaches a joystick where the actuation element has a slider that is configured to block a designated function and upon removal unlocks the designated function, there is insufficient structural similarities between Inoue and Leckenby to motivate an ordinary skilled artisan to modify the operating unit wherein a second element that blocks the press function is configured as a spacer in order to close a distance between the actuation element and the holding element, wherein the first element that blocks the rotate function engages in the vertical groove as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gould, US 2007/0164996 A1, Joystick Controller with Centre-Lock, relevant to claims 1-5.
Kornelson, US 2014/0251070 A1, Machine Controller having Joystick and Adjustable Hands-Free Locking Mechanism, relevant to claims 1-5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
JENNIFER A JONES
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/JENNIFER A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights