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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 05/24/2024 has/have been taken into account.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 06/23/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 6, 8-9, and 14 have been amended; No claims have been canceled; Claims 16-20 have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, lines 5-11, filed 06/23/2026, and the interview summary recorded 06/12/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 10, 13, and 15 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Clark et al. (US 4,729,646).
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that: "Clark neither shows any detachment in the sense of a complete separation of frame 18 (Fig. 1) from dovetail rails 62, 64 (Figs. 2 and 3) nor from dovetail rails 86, 88 (Fig. 9) of column 14. The configuration of the rails 62, 64 and 86, 88 of Clark do not form parts of a quick release interface as claimed in applicant’s independent claims." - Clark in column 8, lines 3-9: "should a change of support brackets 18 be desired it is only necessary to loosen thumbscrew 134 which in turn loosens dovetail slides 126, 128 from locking engagement with, respectively, dovetail slides 86, 88 and bracket 18 easily removed. A completely different type of support bracket may then be slid into place". As such, applicant's argument that Clark does not recite complete separation is incorrect and unpersuasive.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites "the quick release interface includes a latching member configured to mesh with a latching cutout; and, said interface part includes a first component of said latching member and said latching cutout." (emphasis added). - It is unclear how a latching member that meshes with a latching cutout on the same component functions, as it is not meshing with a separate component to latch the two together. Section [0034] of the specification states: " The first interface part 132 of the mount 100 includes a latching member 134, which can mesh with a mating latching cutout (not shown in any more detail) on the second interface part 210 of the stereo image display device 200." and section [0021] states " In this case, the latching cutout can be assigned to one of mount and holding arm, with the latching member then being assigned to the other of mount and holding arm." These excerpts show that a singular part with both a latching member and latching cutout is not a definite recitation of the invention.
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, 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, 10-13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 4,729,646) in view of Brunner et al. (US 2004/0036962).
In regards to Claim 1, Clark discloses a digital stereo image display device comprising: a holding arm (Clark: Fig. 1; 18) having a proximal end for attachment to a mount (Clark: Fig. 3; 16) for an optical system with a digital image recording device; said holding arm further having a distal end where two eyepieces (Clark: Fig. 1; 142) are disposed and configured to display images captured from two different viewing angles; and, an interface part (Clark: Fig. 1, 3; 126, 128, 134) of a quick release interface for releasable attachment to the mount being present at said proximal end.
Clark fails to disclose an optical system with a digital image recording device; two digital eyepieces are disposed and configured to display images captured by the digital image recording device from two different viewing angles. However, Brunner teaches an optical system with a digital image recording device (Brunner: Fig. 1; 4-6); and two digital eyepieces (Brunner: Fig. 1; 13) that are disposed and configured to display images captured by the digital image recording device from two different viewing angles.
Clark and Brunner are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable support stands; and adjustably supporting optical devices. 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 image display device in Clark with the adjustable digital device from Brunner, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a device that is separable such that the eyepieces are adjustable relative to the fixed image recording device, thereby greatly improving the ergonomics of the device (Brunner: [0006] - [0007]).
In regards to Claim 10, Clark, as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 1, wherein the quick release interface (Clark: Fig. 1, 3; 86, 88, 89, 126, 128, 133, 134) forms an interlocking connection in a coupled state.
In regards to Claim 11, Clark, as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 10, wherein said quick release interface (Clark: Fig. 1, 3; 86, 88, 89, 126, 128, 133, 134) is a dovetail joint with a releasable latching device (Clark: Fig. 1; 134).
In regards to Claim 12, Clark, as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 1, but fails to disclose said interface part includes a plurality of electrical contacts and is configured to establish a data connection with at least one of the image recording device and a control computer coupled to the image recording device when said quick release interface is closed.
However, Brunner teaches an interface part (Brunner: Fig. 1; 9, 12, 22) that includes a plurality of electrical contacts (Brunner: Fig. 1; 9, 12) and is configured to establish a data connection with at least one of an image recording device (Brunner: Fig. 1; 4-6) and a control computer coupled to the image recording device.
Clark and Brunner are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable support stands; and adjustably supporting optical devices. 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 interface in Clark with the control unit and contacts from Brunner, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means of delivering stereoscopic images to the displays of each eyepiece that can also accommodate position adjustment of the eyepieces (Brunner: [0034]-[0036]), so as to facilitate a device that is separable such that the eyepieces are adjustable relative to the fixed image recording device, thereby greatly improving the ergonomics of the device (Brunner: [0006] - [0007]), and ensuring that the displays remain operational regardless of their positioning.
In regards to Claim 13, Clark discloses a system comprising: a mount (Clark: Fig. 3; 16); a stereo image display device having a holding arm (Clark: Fig. 1; 18) having a proximal end for attachment to said mount for an optical system; said holding arm further having a distal end where two eyepieces (Clark: Fig. 1; 142) are disposed and configured to display images; said image display device further having a first interface part (Clark: Fig. 1, 3, 8; 126, 128, 134, 170, 173) of a quick release interface for releasable attachment to said mount being disposed at said proximal end; and, said mount having a second interface part (Clark: Fig. 3, 8-9; 86, 88, 89, 174, 176, 178, 180) of the quick release interface, wherein said second interface part is configured to mate with said first interface part of the digital stereo image display device.
Clark fails to disclose a digital stereo image display device having a holding arm having a proximal end for attachment to said mount for an optical system with a digital image recording device; said holding arm further having a distal end where two digital eyepieces are disposed and configured to display images captured by the digital image recording device from two different viewing angles. However, teaches a digital stereo image display device having a holding arm having a proximal end for attachment to said mount for an optical system with a digital image recording device; said holding arm further having a distal end where two digital eyepieces are disposed and configured to display images captured by the digital image recording device from two different viewing angles. [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation and/or rationale.]
In regards to Claim 17, Clark, as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 11, wherein said dovetail joint (Clark: Fig. 1, 3; 86, 88, 126, 128) has a v-shaped taper. [Note: Elements 126 and 128 taper in a v-shape.]
In regards to Claim 20, Clark, as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 1, wherein: said interface part (Clark: Fig. 3; 126, 128) is disposed on said holding arm; and, said quick release interface is a dovetail joint (Clark: Fig. 1, 3; 86, 88, 126, 128) having a v-shaped taper configured to assist an insertion of said interface part into a further interface part on the mount. [Note: The v-shaped taper of elements 126 and 128 aids insertion into element 16 by having some amount of play with the mount to facilitate easy removal and insertion as well as ease of adjustment prior to latching.]
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 4,729,646) in view of Brunner et al. (US 2004/0036962) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Manny (US 1,347,645).
In regards to Claim 17, Clark, as modified, teaches the system of claim 13, but fails to disclose said first interface part includes a latching member configured to mesh with a mating latching cutout on said second interface part.
However, Manny teaches a first interface part that includes a latching member (Manny: Fig. 6; 24) configured to mesh with a mating latching cutout (Manny: Fig. 6; 25) on a second interface part.
Clark and Manny are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable support stands. 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 interface latching mechanism in Clark with the latching member and cutout end connection from Manny, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a tapered connection between the latching member and second interface part such that the latching member is received within the second interface part (Manny: Pg. 2, Ln. 15-64), facilitating a more precise connection between the latching elements as well as more improved alignment of the interface parts.
In regards to Claim 19, Clark, as modified, teaches the system of claim 18, wherein said latching member is configured to be released via a pushbutton or a screwing such that said first interface part and said second interface part are separable as a result thereof (Clark: Col. 4, Ln. 47-55.
Claims 1-6, 10-11, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (US 2021/0177539) in view of Clark et al. (US 4,729,646).
In regards to Claim 1, Mueller discloses a digital stereo image display device comprising: a holding arm (Mueller: Fig. 6-7; 8, 9) having a proximal end for attachment to a mount (Mueller: Annotated Fig. 6; 29, M1) for an optical system with a digital image recording device (Mueller: Fig. 6-7; 5); said holding arm further having a distal end where two digital eyepieces (Mueller: Fig. 6-7; 6) are disposed and configured to display images captured by the digital image recording device from two different viewing angles.
Mueller fails to disclose an interface part of a quick release interface for releasable attachment to the mount being present at said proximal end. However, Clark teaches an arm (Clark: Fig. 3; 18) having an interface part (Clark: Fig. 3; 126, 128, 134) of a quick release interface for releasable attachment to a mount (Clark: Fig. 3; 16) being present at a proximal end.
Mueller and Clark are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable support stands; and adjustably supporting optical devices. 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 arm and mount connection in Mueller with the quick release connection from Clark, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide interchangeability of parts, allowing for increased ease of assembly and flexibility of use (Clark: Col. 2, Ln. 44-52; Col. 8, Ln. 3-9), as well as improved repairability.
In regards to Claim 2, Mueller, as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 1, wherein said holding arm (Mueller: Fig. 6-7; 6) includes at least one joint (Mueller: Annotated Fig. 6; J1) between said proximal end and said distal end.
In regards to Claim 3, Mueller, as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 2, wherein said two digital eyepieces (Mueller: Fig. 6-7; 6) are each positively guided in a plane.
In regards to Claim 4, Mueller, as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 2, wherein said at least one joint (Mueller: Annotated Fig. 6; J1) defines a joint axis such that a distal partial arm (Mueller: Annotated Fig. 6; A1) adjoining said distal end is pivotable in a common plane vis-à-vis a proximal partial arm (Mueller: Annotated Fig. 6; A2) adjoining said proximal end.
In regards to Claim 5, Mueller, as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 2, wherein said at least one joint (Mueller: Annotated Fig. 6; J1) defines a joint axis such that a distal partial arm (Mueller: Annotated Fig. 6; A1) adjoining said distal end is pivotable in a first plane arranged parallel to a second plane in which a proximal partial arm (Mueller: Annotated Fig. 6; A2) adjoining said proximal end is pivotable.
In regards to Claim 6, Mueller, as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 4, wherein said holding arm includes a further joint (Mueller: Annotated Fig. 6; J2) disposed at least at one of said proximal partial arm and said distal partial arm, said at least one further joint allowing further pivoting of the two digital eyepieces (Mueller: Fig. 6-7; 6) in the common plane.
In regards to Claim 10, Mueller, as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 1, wherein the quick release interface (Clark: Fig. 1, 3; 86, 88, 89, 126, 128, 133, 134) forms an interlocking connection in a coupled state.
In regards to Claim 11, Mueller, as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 10, wherein said quick release interface (Clark: Fig. 1, 3; 86, 88, 89, 126, 128, 133, 134) is a dovetail joint with a releasable latching device (Clark: Fig. 1; 134).
In regards to Claim 13, Mueller discloses a system comprising: a mount (Mueller: Annotated Fig. 6; 29, M1); a digital stereo image display device having a holding arm (Mueller: Fig. 6-7; 8, 9) having a proximal end for attachment to said mount for an optical system with a digital image recording device (Mueller: Fig. 6-7; 5); said holding arm further having a distal end where two digital eyepieces (Mueller: Fig. 6-7; 6) are disposed and configured to display images captured by the digital image recording device from two different viewing angles.
Muell fails to disclose a first interface part of a quick release interface for releasable attachment to said mount being disposed at said proximal end; and, said mount having a second interface part of the quick release interface, wherein said second interface part is configured to mate with said first interface part of the digital stereo image display device. However, Clark teaches a first interface part (Clark: Fig. 1, 3, 8; 126, 128, 134, 170, 173) of a quick release interface for releasable attachment to a mount (Clark: Fig. 3; 16) being disposed at said proximal end; and, said mount having a second interface part (Clark: Fig. 3, 8-9; 86, 88, 89, 174, 176, 178, 180) of the quick release interface, wherein said second interface part is configured to mate with said first interface part. [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation and/or rationale.]
In regards to Claim 14, Mueller, as modified, teaches the system of claim 13, wherein said second interface part (Clark: Fig. 3, 8-9; 86, 88, 89, 174, 176, 178, 180) of the mount has a securing device (Clark: Fig. 8-9; 174, 176, 178, 180) for additionally securing the quick release interface when coupled.
In regards to Claim 15, Mueller discloses a digital surgical microscope comprising: a digital image recording device (Mueller: Fig. 6-7; 5); a system including a mount (Mueller: Annotated Fig. 6; 29, M1) and a digital stereo image display device (Mueller: Fig. 6-7; 6, 8, 9); said digital stereo image display device having a holding arm (Mueller: Fig. 6-7; 8, 9) having a proximal end for attachment to said mount for an optical system with said digital image recording device; said holding arm further having a distal end where two digital eyepieces (Mueller: Fig. 6-7; 6) are disposed and configured to display images captured by the digital image recording device from two different viewing angles;
Mueller fails to disclose a first interface part of a quick release interface for releasable attachment to said mount being disposed at said proximal end; and, said mount having a second interface part of the quick release interface, wherein said second interface part is configured to mate with said first interface part of the digital stereo image display device. However, Clark teaches a first interface part (Clark: Fig. 1, 3, 8; 126, 128, 134, 170, 173) of a quick release interface for releasable attachment to a mount (Clark: Fig. 3; 16) being disposed at said proximal end; and, said mount having a second interface part (Clark: Fig. 3, 8-9; 86, 88, 89, 174, 176, 178, 180) of the quick release interface, wherein said second interface part is configured to mate with said first interface part. [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation and/or rationale.]
In regards to Claim 16, Mueller, as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 1, wherein: the quick release interface includes a latching member (Clark: Fig. 1, 3; 134) configured to mesh with a latching cutout (Clark: Annotated Fig. 3; C); and, said interface part includes a first component of said latching member and said latching cutout.
In regards to Claim 17, Mueller, as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 11, wherein said dovetail joint (Clark: Fig. 1, 3; 86, 88, 126, 128) has a v-shaped taper. [Note: Elements 126 and 128 taper in a v-shape.]
In regards to Claim 20, Mueller, as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 1, wherein: said interface part (Clark: Fig. 3; 126, 128) is disposed on said holding arm; and, said quick release interface is a dovetail joint (Clark: Fig. 1, 3; 86, 88, 126, 128) having a v-shaped taper configured to assist an insertion of said interface part into a further interface part on the mount. [Note: The v-shaped taper of Elements 126 and 128 aids insertion into element 16 by having some amount of play with the mount to facilitate easy removal and insertion as well as ease of adjustment prior to latching.]
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (US 2021/0177539) in view of Piontkowski (US 7,207,531).
In regards to Claim 7, Mueller as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 1, wherein said holding arm (Mueller: Fig. 6-7; 8, 9) is multi-part.
Mueller fails to disclose a holding arm that is telescopic. However, Piontkowski teaches a holding arm (Piontkowski: Fig. 2; 21) that is telescopic.
Mueller and Piontkowski are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable support stands; and adjustably supporting optical devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an arm segment in Mueller to be telescopic as taught by Piontkowski, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means of adjusting a length of a portion of the arm and fixing it in place, thereby enabling a user to better position and fix the eyepieces relative to their head in a desired position (Piontkowski: Col. 2, Ln. 29-35).
In regards to Claim 8, Mueller as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 2, but fails to disclose said at least one joint has a releasable locking mechanism.
However, Piontkowski teaches at least one joint that has a releasable locking mechanism (Piontkowski: Fig. 2, 4; 22).
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 joints in in Mueller to be telescopic as taught by Piontkowski, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means of holding respective pivotal joints once adjusted, thereby enabling a user to fix the eyepieces relative to their head in a desired position (Piontkowski: Col. 2, Ln. 29-35).
In regards to Claim 9, Mueller as modified, teaches the stereo image display device of claim 6, but fails to disclose at least one of said at least one joint and said at least one further joint has a releasable locking mechanism.
However, Piontkowski taches at least one of at least one joint and said at least one further joint has a releasable locking mechanism (Piontkowski: Fig. 2, 4; 22, 23). [Note: See the rejection of claim 8 for motivation and/or rationale.]
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
810
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Mueller: Fig. 6 (Detail)
PNG
media_image2.png
474
679
media_image2.png
Greyscale
II: Clark; Fig. 3
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights