DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/6/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, cited term of “when at least one guide element is arranged in the second, non-concentric portion, the associated filter holder can be pivoted into the optical passage” (line 12-13) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. Claim cites that “at least two pivotable filter holders, each with at least one receptacle for an optical filter” (line 3-4), --that is, a filter holder may have more than one receptacles for an optical filters. Claim citation in line 12-13 appears to claim that more than one receptacles for an optical filters can be pivoted into the optical passage at same time, which is not disclosed in instant specification.
Further, cited term of “the particular filter holder is arranged in an initial position, free of the optical passage” (line 10-11) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. Term of “the particular filter holder” lacks antecedent, as nowhere in claim specifies “a particular filter holder”. Term of “free of the optical passage” appears a literal translation into English from a foreign document with a idiomatic error. Do applicants mean that ““an associated filter pivoted out of the optical passage”?
Claims 2-14 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 15 has same undefined issues as these of claim 1.
Claims 16-17 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 15 through their dependency from claim 15.
Claim 18 has same undefined issues as these of claim 1.
Claims 19-20 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 18 through their dependency from claim 18.
Regarding claim 4, cited term of “between the guide groove and an outer diameter of the rotatable filter plate” (line 2-3) is vague and renders the claims indefinite, as term of “outer diameter” does not define a unique geometrical limitation. Do applicants mean that “between the guide groove and an outer edge/ circumference of the rotatable filter plate”?
Claim 16 has same undefined issue as that of claim 4.
Claim 19 has same undefined issue as that of claim 4.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baader (US 20170219816).
Regarding Claim 1, Baader teaches a filter changing apparatus camera (abstract; figs. 1-7),
wherein the filter changing apparatus (fig. 4(a-b), 1-5; fig. 5(a-b), 1-5) has
a base plate (fig. 1, 6),
a rotatable filter plate (fig. 4, 3),
an optical passage with an optical axis (fig. 4, 4) and
at least two filter holders (fig. 4, 2), each with at least one receptacle for an optical filter (fig. 4(a-b), 2, 1),
wherein the filter plate has a guide groove with a circumferential guide track and is rotatable relative to the base plate (fig. 5(a), 2; fig. 6, 3a/3b, 6a/6b),
the filter holders are each arranged rotatably on the base plate by means of a rotation axle (fig. 5(b), 5) and each have a guide element (fig. 5(b), 2a),
wherein each guide element is at least partially arranged in the guide groove (fig. 5(b), 2, 2a), characterized in that the guide groove has a first portion, concentric with the optical axis, and a second portion, non-concentric with the optical axis (fig. 5(2), 2), so that, when at least one guide element is arranged in the concentric portion, the particular filter holder is free of the optical passage, and/or, when at least one guide element is arranged in the second, non-concentric portion, the associated filter holder can be move into the optical passage (fig. 5(a-b), 1, 2, 2a, 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Baader teaches the filter changing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first, concentric portion of the guide groove has a starting position at its one end and an end position at its other end (fig. 5(a), 2)) such that, when the guide element of the first filter holder is arranged in the starting position and the guide element of the second filter holder is arranged in the end position, both filter holders are in a position, free of the optical passage, and in the initial position (---this portion of claim is referring to an operational process, and is of a product-by-process claim. For a product-by-process claim even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 4, Baader teaches the filter changing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the rotation axle of each of the filter holders is arranged between the optical axis and the guide groove or between the guide groove and an outer diameter of the rotatable filter plate (fig. 5(a-b), 5, 2/2a, 8).
Regarding Claim 9, Baader teaches the filter changing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second, non-concentric portion of the guide groove has a second subportion with a guide groove position at a minimum distance, which subportion has a smaller distance to the optical axis than the first, concentric portion such that (fig. 5(a), 2), when the respective guide element is arranged at the guide groove position at a minimum distance, the receptacle of the respective filter holder that is arranged closest to the guide element is pivoted into the optical passage (---this portion of claim is referring to an operational process, and is of a product-by-process claim. For a product-by-process claim even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 10, Baader teaches the filter changing apparatus of claim 1, wherein a transition portion with a transition position is arranged between the first subportion and the second subportion of the second, non-concentric portion (fig. 5(a), 2) such that, when the respective guide element is arranged, both receptacles of the respective filter holder are pivoted out of the optical passage (---this portion of claim is referring to an operational process, and is of a product-by-process claim. For a product-by-process claim even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 11, Baader teaches the filter changing apparatus of claim 10, wherein the transition position and the first, concentric portion have the same distance to the optical axis (fig. 5(a), 2) such that, when the respective guide element is moved along the guide groove, the respective filter holder can be pivoted out directly into a position free of the optical passage and into the initial position after being arranged in the optical passage (---this portion of claim is referring to an operational process, and is of a product-by-process claim. For a product-by-process claim even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113).
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.
Claims 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baader (US 20170219816) in a view of Obrebski (US 8675285).
Regarding Claim 15, Baader teaches a camera head (abstract; figs. 1-7),
wherein the camera head (fig. 1 (a-b), 2- camera head) includes
an image sensor (fig. 1 (a-b), 2- camera sensor),
an opening for receiving light of an image along an optical path (fig. 1 (a-b), 5, 3, 2) and
an optical lens system for focusing the light on the image sensor (fig. 3, 2-camera, --including lens system for focusing the light),
wherein in that the camera head further includes at least one filter changing apparatus (fig. 1, 1; fig. 4(a-b), 1-5; fig. 5(a-b), 1-5), the filter changing apparatus including:
a base plate (fig. 1, 6),
a rotatable filter plate (fig. 4, 3),
an optical passage with an optical axis (fig. 4, 4) and
at least two filter holders (fig. 4, 2), each with at least one receptacle for an optical filter (fig. 4(a-b), 2, 1),
wherein the filter plate has a guide groove with a circumferential guide track and is rotatable relative to the base plate (fig. 5(a), 2; fig. 6, 3a/3b, 6a/6b),
the filter holders are each arranged rotatably on the base plate by means of a rotation axle (fig. 5(b), 5) and each have a guide element (fig. 5(b), 2a),
wherein each guide element is at least partially arranged in the guide groove (fig. 5(b), 2, 2a), characterized in that the guide groove has a first portion, concentric with the optical axis, and a second portion, non-concentric with the optical axis (fig. 5(2), 2), so that, when at least one guide element is arranged in the concentric portion, the particular filter holder is free of the optical passage, and/or, when at least one guide element is arranged in the second, non-concentric portion, the associated filter holder can be move into the optical passage (fig. 5(a-b), 1, 2, 2a, 4).
But Baader does not specifically disclose that a camera head for an endoscope.
However, Obrebski teaches a changer for optical elements (abstract; figs. 1-7), wherein a camera head for an endoscope (col. 1, line 15-18, a changer for optical elements, a microscope, an endoscope or a stereo endoscope, containing such a changer; col. 8, line 11-15, The changer according to the invention can be used in a surgical microscope, a microscope, an endoscope, a stereo endoscope, a camera, a video camera…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter changing apparatus of Baader by the changer for optical elements of Obrebski for a purpose to provide for a changer for optical elements, which saves space and weight, which does not block the view, which can thereby be produced easily, is light, smooth-running and easy to operate (col. 4, line 36-45).
Regarding Claim 16, Baader – Obrebski combination teaches the camera head of claim 15, wherein the rotation axle of each of the filter holders is arranged between the optical axis and the guide groove or between the guide groove and an outer diameter of the rotatable filter plate (fig. 5(a-b), 5, 2/2a, 8, as disclosed in Baader).
Regarding Claim 18, Baader teaches a retrofit kit for retrofitting a camera head (abstract; fig. 1 (a-b), 2- camera head),
characterized in that the retrofit kit has at least one filter changing apparatus (fig. 1, 1; fig. 4(a-b), 1-5; fig. 5(a-b), 1-5);
wherein the at least one filter changing apparatus includes
a base plate (fig. 1, 6),
a rotatable filter plate (fig. 4, 3),
an optical passage with an optical axis (fig. 4, 4) and
at least two filter holders (fig. 4, 2), each with at least one receptacle for an optical filter (fig. 4(a-b), 2, 1),
wherein the filter plate has a guide groove with a circumferential guide track and is rotatable relative to the base plate (fig. 5(a), 2; fig. 6, 3a/3b, 6a/6b),
the filter holders are each arranged rotatably on the base plate by means of a rotation axle (fig. 5(b), 5) and each have a guide element (fig. 5(b), 2a),
wherein each guide element is at least partially arranged in the guide groove (fig. 5(b), 2, 2a), characterized in that the guide groove has a first portion, concentric with the optical axis, and a second portion, non-concentric with the optical axis (fig. 5(2), 2), so that, when at least one guide element is arranged in the concentric portion, the particular filter holder is free of the optical passage, and/or, when at least one guide element is arranged in the second, non-concentric portion, the associated filter holder can be move into the optical passage (fig. 5(a-b), 1, 2, 2a, 4).
But Baader does not specifically disclose that wherein a retrofit kit for retrofitting a camera head or an endoscope, and wherein that can be arranged between a proximal end of the endoscope and a distal end of the camera head.
However, Obrebski teaches a changer for optical elements (abstract; figs. 1-7),
wherein a retrofit kit for retrofitting a camera head or an endoscope, and wherein that can be arranged between a proximal end of the endoscope and a distal end of the camera head (col. 1, line 15-18, a changer for optical elements, a microscope, an endoscope or a stereo endoscope, containing such a changer; col. 8, line 11-15, The changer according to the invention can be used in a surgical microscope, a microscope, an endoscope, a stereo endoscope, a camera, a video camera…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter changing apparatus of Baader by the changer for optical elements of Obrebski for a purpose to provide for a changer for optical elements, which saves space and weight, which does not block the view, which can thereby be produced easily, is light, smooth-running and easy to operate (col. 4, line 36-45).
Regarding Claim 19, Baader – Obrebski combination teaches the retrofit kit of claim 18, wherein the rotation axle of each of the filter holders is arranged between the optical axis and the guide groove or between the guide groove and an outer diameter of the rotatable filter plate (fig. 5(a-b), 5, 2/2a, 8, as disclosed in Baader).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 8, 12-14, 17 and 20 are rejected as they depending on based claims having 112 issues, , but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims in case the 112 rejections of the independent claims are overcome by proper amendments.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
In regard to claims 2, 5, 8, 12-14, 17 and 20, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest a filter changing apparatus further comprises: wherein the first, concentric portion of the guide groove has a length with an angular width, with the optical axis as the angle vertex, in a range of 170° to 190°; wherein the filter holders have a receptacle at each of two opposite ends and the rotation axle is arranged centrally between the two opposite ends; wherein the second, non-concentric portion of the guide groove has a first subportion with a guide groove position at a maximum distance, which has a greater distance to the optical axis than the first, concentric portion such that, when the respective guide element is arranged at the guide groove position at a maximum distance, the respective filter holder is pivoted into the optical passage; wherein the filter changing apparatus has a feedback device when a guide groove position, pivoted-in position, or pivoted-out position is reached and wherein the first, concentric portion and the second, non-concentric portion are configured in such a way that the filter holders have opposite directions of rotation about their respective rotation axle or have overlapping rotation radii.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (571) 272 2434.The Fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights