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 .
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. Therefore, the “with the first sub-path (7, 107) being at an acute angle to a plane spanned by the stereoscopic base (4) and the second sub-path (8, 108)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim 1 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 1 recites: “an optical path (5, 105) beginning at a stereoscopic base (4)”, and the phrase is unclear because the specification and drawings appear to use “stereoscopic base (4)” as a distance or lateral separation between two stereoscopic optical paths, rather than a physical point, surface, optical element or region from which an individual optical path can begin. Accordingly, it is unclear what constitutes the claimed beginning of optical path 5 or 105, and how that beginning is spatially related to stereoscopic base 4.
Claim 1 further recites that: “the first sub-path (7, 107) is at an acute angle to a plane spanned by the stereoscopic base (4) and the second sub-path (8, 108).” This limitation is also indefinite because stereoscopic base, described as a distance or separation, does not by itself identify a definite directional line or vector capable of spanning a plane with the second sub-path. The claim does not specify: (a) the two endpoints or corresponding optical axes that define the direction of stereoscopic base 4; (b) whether the claimed plane is defined using the optical axes of paths 5 and 105, the deflection units 3 and 103 or another pairs of corresponding locations; (c) which second sub-path, 8 or 108 is used to define the plane for a particular first sub-path; and (d) whether a single common plane or a separate plane for each stereoscopic channel is intended. Additionally, the drawings appear to illustrate the first and second sub-paths within a common drawing plane, while the description identifies embodiments in which the angle to the reference plane may be zero. Claim 1, however, requires an acute angle, which ordinarily excludes zero degrees. The claim does not clearly distinguish the claimed acute line-to-plane angle from the approximately perpendicular beam-folding angle between the first and second sub-paths. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of claim 1.
Claim 1 initially recites “an optical path (5, 105) beginning at a stereoscopic base (4)” and subsequently recites “an optical path (5, 105) having a first sub-path (7, 107) and a second sub-path (8, 108)”. Because the latter recitation introduces “an optical path” rather than referring to “the optical path” previously introduced it is unclear whether the two recitations refer to the same optical path or to two different optical paths.
Claims 10 and 11 are indefinite because it is unclear what two points or components define “a distance” and how that distance is determined “for each said optical path”. The claim does not specify whether the distance is measure between corresponding components across the two optical paths, between successive components along each path or with respect to another reference.
Prior art under the examiner’s interpretation: For the purpose of applying the prior art, the claim is interpreted as requiring that corresponding components occupy equal axial positions or have equal component to component spacing along the respective optical paths.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 5, 8, 10-12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ren et al. US 2016/0183779.
Regarding claim 2, Ren teaches a stereoscopic arrangement (at least Fig. 12: 100), comprising: at least one objective unit (132), at least one deflection unit (138), at least one image sensor (152), which is arranged downstream of the at least one deflection unit (138) with respect to an optical path (the optical path from beam splitter 138 to sensor 152) beginning at a stereoscopic base (see annotated figure below), at least two optical paths (see annotated figure below) that extend from the at least one objective unit (132), via the at least one deflection unit (138), to the at least one image sensor (152), and the optical paths (see annotated figure below) run in a common plane (Ren further teaches that the two optical paths run in a common plane, as illustrated in Fig. 11, wherein the two paths extends from common objective lens 134 along parallel portions, are respectively deflected in opposite lateral directions by mirrors 138 and continue to respective imaging devices 152 with the complete paths being depicted in the same plane).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First sub-path)][AltContent: textbox (First sub-path)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
224
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (stereoscopic base)][AltContent: textbox (Second sub-path)]
Regarding claim 3, Ren further teaches the stereoscopic arrangement as claimed in claim 2, wherein that at least one image sensor includes two of the image sensors (Figs. 11, 12 and para 0049: states “FIG. 11 is a schematic diagram of the ophthalmic visualization system 100 that can include two imaging devices 152.”), and two of the optical paths are formed that extend from the at least one deflection unit to a respective one of the image sensors (Figs. 11 and 12 shows: two stereo optical channels, respective deflection mirrors 138, respective outgoing lateral optical-path portions; and respective imaging devices 152, thus two post-deflection optical paths extended from respective mirrors 138 to respective sensors of imaging devices 152), and wherein the two image sensors (152) are arranged offset from one another in an axial direction of the respective optical path (Fig. 12: the right imaging device 152 is positioned relatively close to its respective mirror 138, after one downstream lens 132, and the left imaging device 152 is positioned farther from its respective mirror 138, after lens 132 and additional optical zoom components 154. Accordingly, the left and right imaging devices i.e., their image sensors are shown at different axial locations along their respective outgoing optical paths).
Regarding claim 5, Ren teaches the stereoscopic arrangement as claimed in claim 2, wherein two of the optical paths are formed that extend from the at least one deflection unit to a respective one of the image sensors, and wherein the two optical paths extend in opposite directions, or in a same direction, but offset from one another in a direction of a sub-path that extends between the objective unit and the at least one deflection unit (see Ren Figs. 11-12: two optical path portions extending from respective deflection units to respective image sensors, Fig. 11 illustrates respective mirrors 138 deflect the two stereoscopic optical paths laterally toward respective imaging devices 152 positioned on opposite sides of the surgical microscope).
Regarding claim 8, Ren teaches the stereoscopic arrangement as claimed in claim 2, wherein at least one of a separate one of the objective units, a separate one of the deflection units, a separate one of the at least one lens group of the lens group arrangement, or a separate one of the image sensors is provided for each said optical path (see Fig. 11 and para 0027-0028: each optical path includes a respective lens 132, a respective beam splitter 138 and a respective imaging device 152).
Regarding claim 10, Ren teaches the stereoscopic arrangement as claimed in claim 2, wherein a distance between at least one of the at least one objective unit, the at least one deflection unit, lens groups of a lens group arrangement, or the at least one image sensor is the same for each said optical path (as shown in Fig. 11, the respective deflection elements 138, downstream lenses 132 and imaging device 152 are arranged symmetrically in the two optical paths, such that the axial distance from each deflection element 138 to its corresponding imaging device 152 is the same for each optical path).
Regarding claim 11, Ren teaches the stereoscopic arrangement as claimed in claim 2, wherein a distance between at least one of the at least one objective unit, the at least one deflection unit, lens groups of a lens group arrangement, or the at least one image sensor is different for each said optical path (As shown in Fig. 12: first imaging device 152 is positioned relatively close to its corresponding beam splitter 138 whereas the other imaging device 152 is positioned farther downstream along its respective optical path, with optical zoom component 154 arranged between the beam splitter 138 and the imaging device 152. Ren further teaches that the position and orientation of the imaging device associated with the magnification module may be adjusted. Accordingly, the respective image sensors are located at different axial distance from their corresponding deflection units in the two optical paths see para 0025, 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 12, Ren teaches the stereoscopic arrangement as claimed in claim 2, wherein the optical paths (see annotated optical paths shown in claim 2) are deflected, by the at least one deflection unit (138), in the same direction or in opposite directions (optical paths are deflected by 138 into opposite direction to their respective image sensors 152).
Regarding claim 19, Ren teaches the stereoscopic arrangement as claimed in claim 2, wherein the optical paths are deflected by the at least one deflection unit such that they impinge on the at least one image sensor (as shown in Figs. 11-12: beams deflected by 138 impinges into the imaging device 152) that are arranged on the same side or on opposite sides of an orthogonal plane that is oriented orthogonal to a plane spanned by the stereoscopic base (as illustrated the two stereoscopic optical paths lie in a common plane and include respective incoming path portions extending from common objective lens 134 toward beam splitter 138. An orthogonal plane perpendicular to the common optical path plane and containing either incoming path portion divides the oppositely directed post-deflection paths and their respective imaging device 152, such that the image sensors contained in the imaging devices are positioned on opposite side of the orthogonal plane) and a sub-path, running between the objective unit and the deflection unit, of the optical path, and the orthogonal plane contains a sub-path, running between the objective unit and the deflection unit, of the same optical path.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Moller et al. US 2005/0168809.
Regarding claim 4, Ren teaches the stereoscopic arrangement (1) as claimed in claim 2, but fails to teach further comprising at least one adjustable aperture stop arranged downstream of the at least one objective unit in the beam path, said aperture stop being configured to adjust a depth of field and/or an optical resolution.
Moller teaches a stereoscopic operating microscope having an objective optical member 10 and respective adjustable aperture stops 50a and 50b arranged in the stereoscopic partial observation beam paths downstream of objective optical member 10, and the aperture stops may be adjustable (see para 0012), and that a smaller aperture increases depth of focus, whereas a larger aperture increases optical resolution, and that the aperture stops may be controlled to provide either a depth of focus optimized or resolution optimized (see para 13-14). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Moller’s adjustable aperture arrangement into the stereoscopic optical paths of Ren, to permit selective adjustment of depth of field and optical resolution according to the imaging requirement.
Regarding claim 17, Ren teaches the stereoscopic arrangement (1) as claimed in claim 2, wherein the two optical paths are formed that extend from the at least one deflection unit to a respective one of the image sensors (Fig. 11-12: teaches two optical paths extending from respective deflection units 138 to respective image sensor contained in imaging device 152). Ren fails to teach a respective adjustable aperture stop is arranged in each of the two optical paths, and the two aperture stops are arranged offset from one another in an axial direction. Moller teaches providing a respective adjustable aperture stop in each of two stereoscopic observation beam paths to selectively control depth of field and optical resolution (se para 0012-0014). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Moller’s respective adjustable aperture in Ren’s two post-deflection imaging paths for their known aperture control function. Ren further teaches that corresponding downstream optical components in the two stereoscopic paths may be arranged at different axial positions, as illustrated in Figure 12, wherein one imaging path includes additional zoom components 154 and the associated imaging device 152 is positioned farther downstream than the imaging device in the other path. In view of this asymmetric optical layout, it would have been obvious to position each adjustable aperture stop at an optically suitable location within its respective path, thereby arranging the two apertures at different axial positions to accommodate the differing component layouts while retaining the known depth of field and resolution control function of each aperture. Such axial staggering would have amounted to no more than a predictable arrangement of known components performing their established functions. See In re Japiske, 181 F.2d 1019, 1023, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ (CCPA 1975): MPEP 2144.04(V1)(C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 13-16 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Regarding claim 1, Ren teaches a stereoscopic arrangement (see at least Fig.12 and para 0051: 100), comprising: at least one objective unit (para 27 and Fig. 12: objective lens 132), at least one deflection unit (Fig. 12 and para 0028: beam splitter 138) at least one image sensor (Fig. 12 and para 0028: sensors 152), which is arranged downstream of the at least one deflection unit (138) with respect to an optical path (the optical path from beam splitter 138 to sensor 152) beginning at a stereoscopic base (see annotated figure below), an optical path having a first sub-path (see annotated figure below) and a second sub-path (see annotated figure below), the first sub-path extends between the at least one deflection unit (138) and the at least one image sensor (152), with the first sub-path (see annotated figure below) and in that at least one lens group (154) of a lens group arrangement (154 and 132) arranged between the at least one deflection unit (138) and the at least one image sensor (152).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First sub-path)][AltContent: textbox (First sub-path)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
224
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (stereoscopic base)][AltContent: textbox (Second sub-path)]
However, Ren fails to teach: the first sub-path extends between the at least one deflection unit (138) and the at least one image sensor (152), with the first sub-path (see annotated figure below) being at an acute angle to a plane spanned by the stereoscopic base and the second sub-path, which extends between the at least one objective unit and the at least one deflection unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0014904, US 2022/0075167, US 2016/0357003 (teaches surgical arrangement having the arrangement of claim 1, and partially claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EPHREM ZERU MEBRAHTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8386. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am -6 pm (M-F).
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/EPHREM Z MEBRAHTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights