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 .
The action is in response to the application filed on 11/11/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140046152 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Bechtel”) in view of US 20100258710 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Wiese”).
Regarding claim 1, Bechtel teaches a device (abstract) comprising:
a bezel formed in a housing (bezel corresponds to cage 250b positioned at tip portion 105c of housing 105; paragraphs [0110]; Figure 7E-7G), wherein the bezel comprises a sidewall extending in a first direction away from a exterior surface of the housing (as shown in Figure 7K), an aperture that extends in a second direction from a first inside edge of the sidewall to a second inside edge of the sidewall (as shown in Figure 7K), and the first direction is transverse to the second direction (as shown in Figure 7K);
a probe tip assembly (300; paragraph [0114]; Figure 7F), comprising a first portion formed within the bezel and a second portion formed outside of the bezel (as shown in Figure 7F), wherein the first portion is coupled to the second portion (as shown in Figure 7F); and
an aperture plate (430; paragraphs [0116]; as shown in Figure 7F), formed in the bezel within the sidewall (as shown in Figure 7F).
Bechtel does not explicitly teach there is an epoxy between the aperture plate and first portion of the probe tip assembly.
Wiese teaches there is an epoxy between the aperture plate and first portion of the probe tip assembly (paragraph [0104]; [0095]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bechtel, to have an epoxy attachment to secure the aperture plate, as taught by Wiese, because doing so mechanically secures the aperture plate while minimizing light leakage.
Regarding claim 2, Bechtel, in view of Wiese, teaches wherein the first portion of the probe tip assembly comprises a first circuit board (410; paragraph [0137]-[0138]; Figures 7C-D; as taught by Bechtel).
Regarding claim 3, Bechtel, in view of Wiese, teaches wherein the second portion of the probe tip assembly comprises a second circuit board (415; paragraph [0137]-[0138]; Figures 7C-D; as taught by Bechtel).
Regarding claim 4, Bechtel, in view of Wiese, teaches a riser positioned in the epoxy between the aperture plate and first portion of the probe tip assembly (Bechtel teaches a riser; paragraph [0142], [0146], [0148]; Wiese teaches the epoxy positioned by aperture plate; paragraphs [0095], [0104]).
Regarding claim 5, Bechtel, in view of Wiese, teaches comprising:
one or more photodiodes, coupled to the first portion of the probe tip assembly and positioned within the bezel (paragraph [0116], [0140]).
Regarding claim 8, Bechtel, in view of Wiese, teaches a length of the first portion of the probe tip assembly in the first direction is greater than a length of the second portion of the probe tip assembly in the first direction (as shown in Figure 7F).
Regarding claim 10, Bechtel, in view of Wiese, teaches wherein the first circuit board does is not in contact with the aperture (paragraph [0116]; as shown in Figure 7K; as taught by Bechtel).
Regarding claim 11, Bechtel, in view of Wiese, teaches wherein a portion of the sidewall of the bezel is removed (as shown in Figure 7K; as taught by Bechtel).
Regarding claim 12, Bechtel, in view of Wiese, teaches wherein a front surface of the aperture plate is flush with a surface of the sidewall (as shown in Figures 7F; as taught by Bechtel).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtel, in view of Wiese, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20020095074 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Al-Ali”).
Regarding claim 6, Bechtel, in view of Wiese, teaches a ribbon cable, coupled to the second portion of the probe tip assembly (paragraphs [0137]-[0138]);
but does not explicitly teach the cable being a ribbon cable.
However, Al-Ali teaches comprising: a ribbon cable, coupled to the second portion of the probe tip assembly (paragraphs [0033]-[0038]; Figures 4-9A). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bechtel, in view of Wiese, to use a ribbon cable, as taught by Al-Ali, because making this modification merely combines prior art elements according to known methods well known in the industry (see MPEP 2143, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein a length of the second portion of the probe tip assembly in the second direction is greater than a length of the first portion of the probe tip assembly in the second direction” In combination with the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein the first portion of the probe tip assembly comprises a first circuit board and the second portion of the probe tip assembly comprises a second circuit board.” In combination with the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12138049 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because though independent claims 13 and 18 of the Instant Application provide a method claim, the method forms the same devices of claims 1 and 6, the independent claims of US 12138049 B2.
Conclusion
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under a Double Patenting Rejection; but provides subject matter not found in the prior art search.
Regarding claim 13, US 20130324816 A1 (Bechtel) teaches a method and apparatus having a housing (as shown in Figure 1A);
a probe tip (115; paragraph [0038]-[0042]; Figure 1A-B), housed by the housing distal to the proximal end at a distal end of the housing and visible from the exterior of the housing at the distal end of the housing, wherein the probe tip is coupled to the processor (paragraph [0038]-[0042]; Figure 1A-B);
a first printed circuit board (PCB) and a second PCB, the first PCB is positioned closer to the proximal end of the housing than the second PCB, the second PCB is positioned closer to the distal end of the housing than the first PCB, a first surface of the first PCB faces the distal end of the housing, a second surface of the second PCB faces the proximal end of the housing (paragraphs [0059]-[0065]; Figures 1A-B, Figures 3-5A);
US 20090234206 A1 (Gaspard) teaches a bezel located at the proximal end of a housing, wherein the bezel comprises a sidewall, an aperture that extends from a first end of the sidewall to a second end of the sidewall (30; paragraph [0029]; Figures 1, 3-4).
US 6901221 B1 (Jiang) teaches an optical sensor device with two PCBs and detector and emitter attached to the PCBs (as shown in Figure 1 and associated description).
However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the probe tip is coupled to the processor an aperture plate, a first printed circuit board (PCB) coupled to the aperture plate, a second PCB coupled to the first PCB, wherein the aperture plate is located in the aperture of the bezel, a surface of the aperture plate and a top surface of the sidewall of the bezel are flush, a first portion of the first PCB is coupled to the aperture plate in the aperture of the sidewall” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 18, US 20130324816 A1 (Bechtel) teaches a method and apparatus having a housing (as shown in Figure 1A);
a probe tip (115; paragraph [0038]-[0042]; Figure 1A-B), housed by the housing distal to the proximal end at a distal end of the housing and visible from the exterior of the housing at the distal end of the housing, wherein the probe tip is coupled to the processor (paragraph [0038]-[0042]; Figure 1A-B);
a first printed circuit board (PCB) and a second PCB, the first PCB is positioned closer to the proximal end of the housing than the second PCB, the second PCB is positioned closer to the distal end of the housing than the first PCB, a first surface of the first PCB faces the distal end of the housing, a second surface of the second PCB faces the proximal end of the housing (paragraphs [0059]-[0065]; Figures 1A-B, Figures 3-5A); and
the probe tip comprises a plurality of photodetectors located on a surface of the first PCB, which is coupled to the aperture plate, the aperture plate includes a plurality of aperatures, and the photodetectors are registered with the apertures of the aperture plate (paragraph [044]-[0047], [0058]-[0059]; Figures 2A-B).
US 20090234206 A1 (Gaspard) teaches a bezel located at the proximal end of a housing, wherein the bezel comprises a sidewall, an aperture that extends from a first end of the sidewall to a second end of the sidewall (30; paragraph [0029]; Figures 1, 3-4).
US 6901221 B1 (Jiang) teaches an optical sensor device with two PCBs and detector and emitter attached to the PCBs (as shown in Figure 1 and associated description).
However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the probe tip is coupled to the processor an aperture plate, a first printed circuit board (PCB) coupled to the aperture plate, a second PCB coupled to the first PCB, wherein the aperture plate is located in the aperture of the bezel, a surface of the aperture plate and a top surface of the sidewall of the bezel are flush, a first portion of the first PCB is coupled to the aperture plate in the aperture of the sidewall” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
