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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I – Fig. 1-9, in the reply filed on 7/27/2026 is acknowledged. There are no explicit grounds for traversing, thus, the Examiner has maintained the restriction for reasons as already made clear in the restriction requirement mailed 5/27/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/27/2026.
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 10 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 10 recites the limitation "the drive roller". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are drive rollers mentioned in preceding claims, but claim 10 does not depend upon any of them as there are no drive rollers mentioned in claims 1, 2 or 4.
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) 1-6, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2005-210682 A to Konno et al.
NOTE: Citations relied upon for Konno at in reference to the Machine translation provided by the Examiner.
With respect to claim 1 Konno discloses, in Fig. 1-8, a holding apparatus that is insertable into a transparent tubular member (paragraph 5), comprising: a holding portion that is capable of holding an imaging apparatus including an imaging optical system and an imaging device for capturing an image of an outside of the tubular member (paragraph 21 and 25); and a drive portion that is capable of moving the holding apparatus in the tubular member and rotating the holding portion around a direction that intersects an optical axis of the imaging optical system (paragraph 24-25).
With respect to claim 2 Konno discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the holding apparatus according to Claim 1, further comprising: a passive portion that is moved by the drive portion, wherein the holding portion is supported so as to be sandwiched between the passive portion and the drive portion (paragraph 24; where the front or back wheels can be the drive wheels and the holding portion for the camera is in between the wheel sets).
Claim 3 is rejected for similar reasons as claims 1 and 2 above.
With respect to claim 4 Konno discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the holding apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the passive portion includes a plurality of passive rollers that are contactable with an inner peripheral surface of the tubular member (paragraph 24).
With respect to claim 5 Konno discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the holding apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the drive portion includes a plurality of passive rollers that are contactable with an inner peripheral surface of the tubular member, a plurality of drive rollers that are contactable with the inner peripheral surface of the tubular member, and a first motor for rotating the drive rollers (paragraph 24).
With respect to claim 6 Konno discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the holding apparatus according to Claim 4, wherein the drive portion includes a plurality of exterior members and a shaft member for connecting the plurality of exterior members to each other, and wherein the shaft member holds at least one passive roller among the plurality of passive rollers (Fig. 8; where the wheels (i.e. exterior members) can be seen as recessed in the frame which corresponds to the shaft member).
With respect to claim 13 Konno discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the holding apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the drive portion includes a plurality of exterior members, wherein the plurality of exterior members each have a recess, and wherein a hole is formed by the recesses when the plurality of exterior members are connected to each other (Fig. 8; where it can be seen the wheels are recessed in the exterior housing).
With respect to claim 15 Konno discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the holding apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the imaging apparatus is an existing product (paragraph 2; where the camera system is for a surveillance environment and there is no reason to believe the camera of Konno does not exist).
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) 14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-210682 A to Konno et al.
With respect to claim 14 Konno discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the holding apparatus according to Claim 1 (see above).
Konno does not expressly disclose wherein the holding portion is capable of removably holding the imaging apparatus.
However, Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of making a camera within a system removable are well known and expected in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have obvious to make the camera of Konno removable as it would allow for swapping of the camera if better cameras become available or replacement if the device fails.
With respect to claims 16-18 Konno discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the holding apparatus according to Claim 1 (see above).
Konno does not expressly disclose the television camera comprises a focal length FL of the imaging optical system that satisfies 20 mm ≤ FL ≤ 80 mm (claim 16), 30 mm ≤ FL ≤ 70 mm (claim 17) and/or 40 mm ≤ FL ≤ 60 mm (claim 18).
However, a television camera with a 50 mm focal length would satisfy all of the claimed ranges.
Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of television cameras with 50 mm focal length are well known and expected in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have used a television camera with a 50 mm focal length as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and similarly it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 11-12 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M PASIEWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5516. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, George Eng can be reached at (571)272-7495. 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.
/DANIEL M PASIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
September 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights