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 .
Claims 1, 7, 19-21, 25, 28-30, 59, and 89-98 are currently pending in the present application.
Claims 1, 7, 29-30, 59, and 89-93 are currently amended; claims 2-6, 8-18, 22-24, 26-27, 31-58, and 60-88 have been canceled by the applicant; and claims 19-21, 25, 28, and 94-98 have been previously presented.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 15 July 2025 was considered by the examiner.
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, 7, 19-21, 25, 28-30, 59, and 89-98 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.
Re: claim 1, the term “high” in the limitation “high radiation tolerant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been interpreted as if it were deleted.
In addition, the term “high” in the limitation “less high radiation tolerant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been interpreted as if it were deleted.
Re: claims 7, 19-21, 25, 28-30, 59, and 89-98, because they depend upon claim 1, they are likewise rejected.
Re: claim 30, the meaning of the limitation “a camera head” in line 3 is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the limitation refers to the “camera head” recited in claim 1 [upon which this claim depends] or whether some other camera head is being referred to. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as referring to the camera head recited in claim 1.
In addition, the term “higher” in the limitation “higher radiation environment” in line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been interpreted as if it were deleted.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “control electronics” in line 3 and in the last line of the claim is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the limitation refers to the “control electronics” recited in claim 1 or whether some other control electronics are being referred to. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as referring to the control electronics recited in claim 1.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “a laser” in line 15 is unclear. It is not clear as to whether this limitation refers to the laser light source in claim 1 or whether some other laser is being referred to. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as referring to the laser light source in claim 1.
Re: claims 94-98, because the depend upon claim 30, they are likewise rejected.
Re: claim 59, the term “higher” in the limitation “higher radiation tolerant” in line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been interpreted as if it were deleted.
In addition, the term “higher” in the limitation “higher radiation environment” in lines 4-5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been interpreted as if it were deleted.
Re: claim 89, the meaning of the limitation “A camera head” is unclear. It is not clear if the limitation refers to the camera head recited in claim 1 or if some other camera head is being referred to. For the purpose of examining the claim, the limitation has been construed as referring to the camera head recited in claim 1.
Re: claim 92, the meaning of the term “higher” in the limitation “higher levels of radiation” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “above background radiation levels, as encountered in a nuclear reactor” is unclear. The meaning is unclear because the specification has not established what levels of radiation constitute background radiation and what levels of radiation are known to exist in a nuclear reactor.
Re: claim 93, the meaning of the term “high” in the limitation “high levels of radiation” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “above background radiation levels, as encountered in any of: nuclear power plant refueling, inspection, and monitoring; nuclear fuel production, inspection, and storage; or nuclear spent fuel inspection, repair, and storage” is unclear. The meaning is unclear because the specification has not established what levels of radiation constitute background radiation and what levels are present in nuclear power plant refueling, inspection, and monitoring; nuclear fuel production, inspection, and storage; or nuclear spent fuel inspection, repair, and storage.
Re: claim 94, the meaning of the term “higher” in the limitation “higher radiation environment” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Re: claim 95, the meaning of the term “higher” in the limitation “higher radiation environment” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Re: claim 96, the meaning of the term “higher” in the limitation “higher radiation environment” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Re: claim 97, the meaning of the term “higher” in the limitation “higher radiation environment” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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, 19, 20, 25, 30, 59, 89, and 90 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizuno (US 20040122289).
Re: claim 1, Mizuno discloses a camera head 100 (Fig. 1) and control electronics 300, the camera head devoid of an active light source (no light source in element 100 disclosed in Fig. 1) and devoid of an active light detector (no active light detector in element 100 disclosed in Fig. 1), the camera head comprising: a first end of a first light path 110a (Fig. 1) located to emit delivered light (configuration disclosed in Fig. 1, where delivered light is delivered from coupler 320 and laser source 310), the first light path comprising one or more radiation-tolerant optical fibers 110 (Fig. 1 discloses ability to receive light from laser source 310); a first focusing optic element 120 (Fig. 1) located to focus the delivered light as focused light (location disclosed in Fig. 1, where the focused light is emitted from lens 120); a scanning mirror system 140, 150 (Fig. 1) located to orient the focused light as oriented light (location disclosed in Fig. 1, where oriented light is output from surface 130a); a second focusing optic element 170 located to focus the oriented light as focused oriented light (location disclosed in Fig. 1); and a first end of a backscattered light path located to collect backscattered light from the focused oriented light as collected light (Fig. 1, the end starting at element 170, where backscattered light path is disclosed in paras. 48-49), the backscattered light path comprising one or more radiation-tolerant optical fibers 110 (Fig. 1); and the control electronics comprising: a laser light source 310 connected so as to deliver the delivered light to a second end of the first light path (Fig. 1, where the second end is proximate to lens 170); a control 340 that governs the scanning mirror system (control of 140, 150 disclosed in para. 54); a second end of the backscattered light path (Fig. 1, the end located proximate to light receiving element 330) located to emit the collected light as received light (para. 52 discloses light collection by element 330); an active light detector 330 located to detect the received light as detected light (location disclosed in Fig. 1); electronics, or electronics and software 350 (Fig. 1), that constructs an image from the detected light; and display electronics 400 that displays the image (para. 52 discloses image display capability).
Re: claim 19, Mizuno discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Mizuno further discloses that the first focusing optic element 120 is a collimating optic element (para. 38).
Re: claim 20, Mizuno discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Mizuno further discloses that the second focusing optical element 170 is comprised of a lens (para. 46).
Re: claim 25, Mizuno discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Mizuno further discloses that the scanning mirror system 140, 150 is comprised of a single, 2-axis MEMS or two single-axis MEMS (Fig. 2 & para. 42 disclose single axis of rotation A; para. 40 discloses that elements 140 and 150 have the same structure).
Re: claim 30, Mizuno discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Mizuno further discloses the steps of: locating a camera head 100 (Fig. 1) and control electronics 300; emitting delivered light from the first end of the first light path 110a (Fig. 1, where delivered light is delivered from coupler 320 and laser source 310); focusing the delivered light with the first focusing optic element 120 to produce focused light (Fig. 1); orienting the focused light with the scanning mirror system 140, 150 to produce oriented light (Fig. 1); focusing the oriented light with the second focusing optic element 170 to produce focused oriented light (Fig. 1); and collecting backscattered light from the focused oriented light using the first end of the backscattered light path (Fig. 1, the end starting at element 170, where backscattered light path is disclosed in paras. 48-49); and the process further comprising: delivering, from a laser 310, the delivered light to the second end (Fig. 1, where the second end is proximate to lens 170) of the first light path 110a; emitting, from the second end of the backscattered light path (Fig. 1, the end located proximate to light receiving element 330) the collected light as received light (para. 52 discloses light collection by element 330); detecting, with the active light detector 330 the received light as detected light (Fig. 1); constructing, with the control electronics, or the control electronics and software 350, an image from the detected light; and displaying the image (Fig. 1, where monitor 400 displays image); and operating the camera head and the control electronics to produce the image (Fig. 1).
Re: claim 59, Mizuno discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Mizuno further discloses the step of assembling a camera head 100 (Fig. 1), control electronics 300, or both the camera head and the control electronics, such that the camera head is operable (Fig. 1), the camera head devoid of an active light source (no light source in element 100 disclosed in Fig. 1) and devoid of an active light detector (no active light detector in element 100 disclosed in Fig. 1) and comprising a first end of a first light path 110a (Fig. 1) located to emit delivered light (configuration disclosed in Fig. 1, where delivered light is delivered from coupler 320 and laser source 310), the first light path comprising one or more radiation-tolerant optical fibers 110 (Fig. 1 discloses ability to receive light from laser source 310); a first focusing optic element 120 (Fig. 1) located to focus the delivered light as focused light (location disclosed in Fig. 1, where the focused light is emitted from lens 120); a scanning mirror system 140, 150 (Fig. 1) located to orient the focused light as oriented light (location disclosed in Fig. 1, where oriented light is output from surface 130a); a second focusing optic element 170 located to focus the oriented light as focused oriented light (location disclosed in Fig. 1); and a first end of a backscattered light path located to collect backscattered light from the focused oriented light as collected light (Fig. 1, the end starting at element 170, where backscattered light path is disclosed in paras. 48-49), the backscattered light path comprising one or more radiation-tolerant optical fibers 110 (Fig. 1); and the control electronics having connections (connections disclosed in Fig. 1; see also Fig. 5) to render the camera head operable to produce an image, and further comprising: a laser light source 310 connected so as to deliver the delivered light to a second end of the first light path (Fig. 1, where the second end is proximate to lens 170); a control 340 that governs the scanning mirror system (control of 140, 150 disclosed in para. 54); a second end of the backscattered light path (Fig. 1, the end located proximate to light receiving element 330) located to emit the collected light as received light (para. 52 discloses light collection by element 330); an active light detector 330 located to detect the received light as detected light (location disclosed in Fig. 1); electronics, or electronics and software 350 (Fig. 1), that constructs an image from the detected light; and display electronics 400 that displays the image (para. 52 discloses image display capability).
Re: claim 89, Mizuno discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Mizuno further discloses a camera head 100 that renders the apparatus of claim 1 operable to produce imagery (Fig. 1; para. 32).
Re: claim 90, Mizuno discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Mizuno further discloses control electronics 250 that renders the apparatus of claim 1 operable to produce imagery (Fig. 1; para. 52).
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.
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) 21 and 94-97 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno.
Re: claim 21, Mizuno discloses the limitations of claim 1. While Mizuno does not explicitly disclose that the second focusing optical element 170 is comprised of an F-theta lens, Mizuno does disclose that the second focusing optical element is a lens. A person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date would have been motivated to use an F-theta lens in the device disclosed by Mizuno for the purpose of keeping the laser spot size, focus, and intensity from the laser light source substantially constant. The use of an f-theta lens as a specific lens type is the obvious substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Re: claim 94, Mizuno discloses the limitations of claim 30, and while Mizuno does not explicitly disclose that the camera head is located in a nuclear reactor, Figure 1 does disclose that the camera head 100 is physically located separately from the electronic components, the light source, and the output monitor (collectively, electronic-based components 300 in Figure 1). By locating components 300 separately from the camera head 100, camera head 100 can be used in environments that are harmful to or otherwise cause degradation in electronic-based components 300. A person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date would have been motivated to utilize the teaching of Mizuno to locate electronic-based components separately from the camera head in order to utilize the camera head in a harmful environment such as in a nuclear reactor for the purpose of extending the useful life of the camera head.
Re: claim 95, Mizuno discloses the limitations of claim 30, and while Mizuno does not explicitly disclose that the camera head is located in any nuclear power plant refueling, inspection, and monitoring, Figure 1 does disclose that the camera head 100 is physically located separately from the electronic components, the light source, and the output monitor (collectively, electronic-based components 300 in Figure 1). By locating components 300 separately from the camera head 100, camera head 100 can be used in environments that are harmful to or otherwise cause degradation in electronic-based components 300. A person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date would have been motivated to utilize the teaching of Mizuno to locate electronic-based components separately from the camera head in order to utilize the camera head in a harmful environment such as that which is encountered in of nuclear power plant refueling, inspection, and monitoring for the purpose of extending the useful life of the camera head.
Re: claim 96, Mizuno discloses the limitations of claim 30, and while Mizuno does not explicitly disclose that the camera head is located in the environment of nuclear fuel production, inspection, and storage, Figure 1 does disclose that the camera head 100 is physically located separately from the electronic components, the light source, and the output monitor (collectively, electronic-based components 300 in Figure 1). By locating components 300 separately from the camera head 100, camera head 100 can be used in environments that are harmful to or otherwise cause degradation in electronic-based components 300. A person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date would have been motivated to utilize the teaching of Mizuno to locate electronic-based components separately from the camera head in order to utilize the camera head in a harmful environment such as that which is encountered in any of nuclear fuel production, inspection, and storage for the purpose of extending the useful life of the camera head.
Re: claim 97, Mizuno discloses the limitations of claim 30, and while Mizuno does not explicitly disclose that the camera head in a radiation environment of any of nuclear spent fuel inspection, repair, and storage, Figure 1 does disclose that the camera head 100 is physically located separately from the electronic components, the light source, and the output monitor (collectively, electronic-based components 300 in Figure 1). By locating components 300 separately from the camera head 100, camera head 100 can be used in environments that are harmful to or otherwise cause degradation in electronic-based components 300. A person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date would have been motivated to utilize the teaching of Mizuno to locate electronic-based components separately from the camera head in order to utilize the camera head in a harmful environment such as that which is encountered in any of nuclear spent fuel inspection, repair, and storage for the purpose of extending the useful life of the camera head.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 28, 29, 91, and 98 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871