The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 16 recites the limitation “the second sliding fiber optic cable holder”, whereas claims 1 and 13 – 15 do not define a second sliding fiber optic cable holder. For the purposes of this Action and in accordance with the instant specification, the limitation is interpreted as “the second fiber optic cable holder”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6 – 9, 11, and 13 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenner et al (US 2013/0223798 A1) in view of Upton (US 4,190,318 A), and further in view of Ullah (US 2012/0213525 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jenner discloses (Figs. 2 – 6; Abstract; para. 0038 – 0080) an infinite (limitless) rotation joint 201 (a general view of its assembled state is shown in Fig. 4A; para. 0053) configured to pass at least an optical signal therethrough (between optical fibers 320,630, as shown in Fig. 5A; para. 0057, 0058, and 0071), the infinite rotation joint 201 comprising:
a first portion (e.g., the stator S of the joint, as identified in Fig. 5; para. 0077) comprising a first fiber optic cable holder 620 (as identified in Fig. 5) and a plurality of extension pins 753 extending in a pin (radial) direction (Fig. 6; “Each of the contact bands 649 is in contact with at least one of pogo pins 753 mounted within jack member 529” at para. 0080);
a second portion (comprising the stator R of the joint and the upper portion with coupling 300, as identified in Fig. 5; para. 0045 and 0077) comprising a second fiber optic cable holder 300 and a plurality of pin receptacles 649 opening in the pin (radial) direction (as shown in Fig. 6; “Each of the contact bands 649 is in contact with at least one of pogo pins 753 mounted within jack member 529” at para. 0080; also para. 0076), wherein the second portion is configured to be engaged with the first portion by placing the plurality of extension pins 753 onto the plurality of pin receptacles 649 to allow transmission of electrical signals across the infinite rotation joint, and wherein the first and second fiber optic cable holders 620,300 are configured to enable transmission of an optical signal across the infinite rotation joint when the first and second portions are engaged (“An optical-electrical rotary joint allows optical communication and continuous electrical contact from an upstream side of a coupling to a downstream side of the coupling while the two sides of the coupling my rotate relative to one another. Further, as discussed with reference to FIGS. 8A-9B, the invention provides optical rotary joints that allow optical communication across a coupling while downstream components rotate relative to upstream components” at para. 0111).
Jenner (i) does not illustrate that the pin receptacles 649 (in Fig. 6) having a flat outer surface can alternatively be shaped as grooves extending toward, and receiving, the extension pins 753 and (ii) does not detail types of electrical signals that can be transmitted by the joint. However, Upton and Ullah provide features (i) and (ii) respectively, as detailed below.
As for feature (i), Upton discloses (Figs. 1 – 3; Abstract; 3:25 – 5:13) a rotation joint 10 (a cross-sectional view of its assembled state is shown in Fig. 1) configured to pass at least an optical signal therethrough (Abstract) and at least one electric signal (between electric leads 54,56, as shown in Fig. 3; “ The electrical signals on ring 50 and slider 52 are carried therefrom by means of leads 54 and 56 respectively” at 5:11 – 13), the rotation joint 10 comprising:
a first portion 13 comprising a plurality of extension pins 52 extending in a pin (radial) direction (Fig. 1; “Conductive ring 50 conventionally has an outer surface configured with an annular V-shaped groove therein in which a brush or slider element 52 rides. Slider element 52 is mounted in a block 53 which is carried on sleeve 13” at 5:7 – 11);
a second portion 11 comprising a plurality of elongated pin receptacles 24 opening in the pin (radial) direction (as seen in Fig. 1), wherein the second portion 11 is configured to be engaged with the first portion 13 by sliding the plurality of extension pins 52 into the plurality of elongated pin receptacles 24 to allow transmission of an electrical signal across the infinite rotation joint (“Channel 24 comprises a conductive ring 50 carried on barrel 11 in a plane parallel with and spaced from the planes of the optical channels. Conductive ring 50 conventionally has an outer surface configured with an annular V-shaped groove therein in which a brush or slider element 52 rides” at 5:4 – 10, emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the pin receptacles 649 (having a flat outer surface) in Janner can alternatively be shaped as V-grooves extending toward, and receiving, the extension pins 753, as suitable/workable design/shape choice that is explicitly illustrated by Upton and ensures accurate and reliable alignment between the extension pins and the elongate pin receptacles (due to the V-grooves of the elongate pin receptacles in which the extension pins are retained).
As for feature (ii), while the Jenner – Upton combination does not detail types of electrical signals that can be transmitted by the joint, Ullah discloses (Figs. 3A and 3B; Abstract; para. 0024 – 0030) a rotation joint (a cross-sectional view of its assembled state is shown in Fig. 3A) that has a general structure similar to that in Jenner and is configured to pass at least an optical signal therethrough (Abstract) and at least one electric signal (using an electric slip ring 350; para. 0026), the rotation joint comprising:
a first portion 135 (stator; para. 0018) comprising a plurality of extension pins/protrusions extending in a pin (radial) direction (Fig. 3A);
a second portion 225 (rotor; para. 0021) comprising a plurality of elongated pin receptacles (V-shaped grooves) opening in the pin (radial) direction (as seen in Fig. 3A), wherein the second portion 225 is configured to be engaged with the first portion 135 by sliding the plurality of extension pins into the plurality of elongated pin receptacles to allow transmission of an electrical signal(s) across the infinite rotation joint (“As to the electrical lines 287 more specifically, an electrical junction 330 is incorporated into the coupling 225, from which separate lines may be routed to an electrical slip-ring interface 350. This interface 350 may be a conventional electrical slip-ring where individual electrical lines 287 terminate at electrically conductive extensions which maintain rotational contact with electrically conductive discs at the inner surface of the housing 135” at para. 0026, emphasis added).
Ullah expressly states that transmitted electrical signals can be power and/or data (“the stationary housing 135 of FIG. 1, which encompasses the coupling 225, is configured to allow for such movement while effectively transferring fiber optic and electrical data (and power) thereacross to stationary surface components” at para. 0021; “electrical communication and/or power may take place between the rotatable coupling 225 and the stationary housing 135” at para. 0026, emphasis added)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the rotation joint of the Jenner – Upton combination can be configured, in accordance with the teachings of Ullah, to transmit both electric data and power and thereby provide electric communications and powering.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claim 3, the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination considers that the rotation joint comprises a plurality of extension pins connected to different electric wires and corresponding elongate pin receptacles (Fig. 6 of Jenner; Fig. 1 of Upton; Fig. 3A of Ullah) and renders obvious a first set of elongated pin receptacles of the plurality of elongated pin receptacles can be configured to transmit power and a second set of elongated pin receptacles of the plurality of elongated pin receptacles can be configured to transmit data.
Regarding claim 6, the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination considers that the rotor can have a constant outer diameter along the longitudinal direction (Fig. 6 of Jenner; Fig. 1 of Upton; Fig. 3A of Ullah) in which case at least two of the elongated pin receptacles of the plurality of elongated pin receptacles have an identical structure and are positioned the same distance from an outer surface of the second portion.
Regarding claim 7, the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination considers that the first portion and the second portion (the lower portion and the upper portion in Fig. 5B in Jenner comprise mating beveled surfaces (as seen in Fig. 5B) configured to facilitate alignment of the first portion with the second portion when the first portion is slid onto the second portion.
Regarding claim 8, the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination considers that the infinite rotation joint can be configured to transmit electric data, power (para. 0021 and 0026 of Ullah), and/or high-definition video (for medical imaging application, such as an imaging catheter in an OCT system (para. 0010 and 0112 of Jenner).
Regarding claim 9, the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination renders obvious that AC power and/or DC power can be transferred across the infinite rotation joint (para. 0021 and 0026 of Ullah).
Regarding claim 11, the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination considers (Fig. 9A) that at least one of the first fiber optic cable holder and the second fiber optic cable holder is a sliding fiber optic cable holder (the holder of the lens 340 of the optical fiber 320 is spring biased by elastic pins 375 which allow for (small) longitudinal movement; para. 0069, 0098, and 0099 of Jenner) configured to move relative to the rest of at least one of the first portion and the second portion during engagement of the first portion and the second portion to allow for variation in position of the first portion relative to the second portion.
Regarding claim 13, the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination considers (Fig. 5B of Jenner) that the infinite rotation joint comprises:
a rotor comprising a main rotor section (upper portion in Fig. 5B of Jenner) and a rotor connector (comprising the lower portion R); and a stator (S), wherein the first (removable) portion comprises the main rotor section and the stator and the second portion comprises the rotor connector.
Regarding claim 14, the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination considers (Figs. 5A and 5B of Jenner) that the main rotor section is rotatably fixed to the stator and rotatable relative thereto and the rotor connector is configured to be releasably engaged with the main rotor section, and wherein the rotor connector is configured to rotate with the main rotor section relative to the stator when the rotor connector is engaged with the main rotor section.
Regarding claim 15, the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination considers (Figs. 5A and 5B of Jenner) that the stator includes the first fiber optic cable holder 620.
Regarding claim 16, the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination considers (Figs. 5A and 5B of Jenner) the first fiber optic cable holder is configured to linearly move a first fiber optic cable connected to the first fiber optic cable holder and the second fiber optic cable holder is configured to linearly move a second fiber optic cable connected to the second fiber optic cable holder along a single line (vertical line in Figs. 5A and 5B) during engagement of the main rotor section and the rotor connector (note that both the upper and lower parts can be linearly moved towards each other to achieve the engaged state in Fig. 5A of Jenner).
Regarding claim 17, the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination considers (Fig. 6 of Jenner; Fig. 1 of Upton; Fig. 3A of Ullah) that the first portion can transmit at least one of power and data to the second portion (para. 0021 and 0026 of Ullah) at a plurality of different relative axial locations (along the longitudinal axis of the joint).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenner in view of Upton, in view of Ullah, and further in view of Lerner (US 2014/0120742 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination illustrates only embodiments wherein the rotor has a constant outer diameter along the longitudinal direction (Fig. 6 of Jenner; Fig. 1 of Upton; Fig. 3A of Ullah). However, Lerner discloses (Fig. 1B; Abstract; para. 0061) an electric rotation joint comprising a plurality of slide contact 5 making electrical contact with a tapered surface of a longitudinally variable diameter. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the rotation joint of the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination can have a rotor with a diameter that varies along its longitudinal direction, a suitable/workable design/shape choice.
It is also noted that it has been further held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).In this case, selecting the claimed dimensions and/or shapes would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the particular requirements of a given application (MPEP 2144. Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103 [R-07.2015]. Section IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenner in view of Upton, in view of Ullah, and further in view of Scott et al (US 4,258,976).
Regarding claim 2, Jenner teaches elastically biased contacts (para. 0008, 0042, and 0052), but does not illustrate spring-biased extension pins. However, Scott discloses (Fig. 7; Abstract; 3:51 – 64) and illustrates an extension pin 42 that is biased by a spring 46 to make reliable electrical contact to a surface 22. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the plurality of extension pins of the joint of the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination can be spring-biased and linearly adjusted within the plurality of elongated pin receptacles in the pin (radial) direction without loss of transmission of the at least one of power and data.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenner in view of Upton, in view of Ullah, in view of Scott, and further in view of Lerner.
Regarding claim 4, the teachings of Jenner, Upton, Ullah, Scott, and Lerner combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claims 1, 2, and 5) to render obvious a rotor with a diameter that varies along its longitudinal direction in which case the first set of elongated pin receptacles comprise a first diameter and the second set of elongated pin receptacles can comprise a second diameter smaller than the first diameter.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenner in view of Upton, in view of Ullah, and further in view of Rus et al (US 2008/0225534 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Jenner considers (para. 0010) that the rotation joint can be used in medical systems, but does not illustrate a variety of suitable applications. However, Rus discloses (Fui. 1; para. 0001, 0009 – 0011, and 0034 – 0039) a system 10 for a medical setting, the system 10 comprising an adjacent pair of suspension arm members (e.g., 52a,30 and 62a,30) that are rotatably coupled to each other by rotation joins 30A,30C.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the rotation joint of the Jenner – Upton – Ullah combination can be used to interconnect a pair of suspension arm members, as a suitable/workable application that is illustrated by Rus and can benefits from infinite/limitless rotation. In such application, the first portion and the second portion (the rotor and the stator) are configured to be mounted to respective suspension arm members of an adjacent pair of suspension arm members.
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter pertaining to claim 12 would be allowable, if Applicant rewrites it in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter is that none of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, provides a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a spring in the rotation joint of Jenner to bias the sliding fiber-optic holder in a sliding direction (as was explained in the Office Action of 1/15/20 issued on parent application 15/645,081. In fact, Jenner generally teaches away from a spring that biases the sliding fiber optic cable holder in a sliding direction, because such bias string may interfere with the proper operation of the structure of Jenner (for example, with the operation of a flexible drive cable 120 shown in Figs. 10A - 10C of Jenner).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0007949 A1
US 2007/0176432 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights