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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending and rejected.
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 "holding device" in Claim 11 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. 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 Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6-8 & 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one first rotatable filter wheel” on Line 5. Further recitations of this limitation on Lines 7-8, 13, 15, 16-17, 20 & 21, respectively, recite “the first filter wheel”. Examiner kindly requests Applicant amend these limitations to read “the at least one first filter wheel” or “the at least one first rotatable filter wheel” to provide consistent claim language throughout.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitations “the first filter wheel can mesh with the teeth [emphasis added]”, “the first connecting wheel can mesh with the teeth [emphasis added]” and “the second filter wheel can be positioned in parallel [emphasis added]” on Lines 16-17, Lines 18-19 and Lines 21-22, respectively. Examiner kindly request Applicant amend these limitations to read “the first filter wheel is configured to mesh with the teeth [emphasis added]”, “the first connecting wheel is configured to mesh with the teeth [emphasis added]” and “the second filter wheel is configured to be positioned in parallel [emphasis added]”, respectively, to better conform to U.S. patent practice and avoid ambiguity whether these limitations are considered optional.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 recites the limitation “the first filter wheel” on Lines 2-3. Examiner kindly requests Applicant amend this limitation to read “the at least one first filter wheel” or “the at least one first rotatable filter wheel” to provide consistent claim language throughout.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 recites the limitation “the first filter wheel” on Line 3. Examiner kindly requests Applicant amend this limitation to read “the at least one first filter wheel” or “the at least one first rotatable filter wheel” to provide consistent claim language throughout.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 recites the limitation “the first filter wheel” on Line 2 & Line 4. Examiner kindly requests Applicant amend these limitations to read “the at least one first filter wheel” or “the at least one first rotatable filter wheel” to provide consistent claim language throughout.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 recites the limitation “the terminal wheel can be driven via a drive gear [emphasis added]” on Line 4. Examiner kindly request Applicant amend this limitation to read “the terminal wheel is configured to be driven via a drive gear [emphasis added]” to better conform to U.S. patent practice and avoid ambiguity whether this limitation is considered optional.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 recites the limitation “the first filter wheel” on Line 2. Examiner kindly requests Applicant amend this limitation to read “the at least one first filter wheel” or “the at least one first rotatable filter wheel” to provide consistent claim language throughout.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 recites the limitation “at least one filter changing apparatus” on Lines 2-3. A further recitation of this limitation on Lines 3-4 recites “the filter changing apparatus”. Examiner kindly requests Applicant amend this limitation to read “the at least one filter changing apparatus” to provide consistent claim language throughout.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 recites the limitation “the filter changing apparatus can be arranged between a proximal end [emphasis added]” on Lines 3-4. Examiner kindly request Applicant amend this limitation to read “the filter changing apparatus is configured to be arranged between a proximal end [emphasis added]” to better conform to U.S. patent practice and avoid ambiguity whether this limitation is considered optional.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“a drive unit configured to drive” in Claim 1, as described in Para. [46] of Applicant’s specification.
“a holding device for holding a non-rotating filter wheel” in Claim 11, as described in Para. [53] of Applicant’s specification.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitations are:
“means of the drive unit” in Claim 1.
“means of the one single motor” in Claim 7.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitations “a first engagement level with teeth distributed over the entire outer circumference thereof [emphasis added]”, “a gear with teeth distributed over the entire outer circumference thereof [emphasis added]” and “the first filter wheel has a portion comprising teeth distributed along the outer circumference thereof [emphasis added]” on Lines 10-11, Line 12 & Lines 13-14, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “a first engagement level with teeth distributed over the entire outer circumference thereof”, “a gear with teeth distributed over the entire outer circumference thereof” and “the first filter wheel has a portion comprising teeth distributed along the outer circumference thereof” are being interpreted as “a first engagement level with teeth distributed over an entire outer circumference thereof [emphasis added]”, “a gear with teeth distributed over an entire outer circumference thereof [emphasis added]” and “the first filter wheel has a portion comprising teeth distributed along an outer circumference thereof [emphasis added]”, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recite the limitation “at least one receptacle of the first filter wheel and of the second filter wheel” on Lines 20-21. It is unclear whether this “at least one receptacle of the first filter wheel and of the second filter wheel” is one of the “at least two receptacles [of the first filter wheel]”, previously recited on Line 8, one of the “at least two receptacles [of the second filter wheel]”, previously recited on Line 8, or a separate, different receptacle”. For the purpose of examination, “at least one receptacle of the first filter wheel and of the second filter wheel” is being interpreted as “at least one receptacle of the at least two receptacles of the first filter wheel and at least one receptacle of the at least two receptacles of the second filter wheel [emphasis added]”.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 recites the limitation “teeth distributed uniformly completely over the respective outer circumference [emphasis added]” on Lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “teeth distributed uniformly completely over the respective outer circumference” is being interpreted as “teeth distributed uniformly completely over a respective outer circumference [emphasis added]”.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitations “the third filter wheel”, “the fourth filter wheel”, “the further filter wheels” and “the respective outer circumference” on Lines 2-3, Line 3, Line 3 & Line 5, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the third filter wheel”, “the fourth filter wheel”, “the further filter wheels” and “the respective outer circumference” are being interpreted as “a third filter wheel”, “a fourth filter wheel”, “further filter wheels” and “a respective outer circumference”, respectively.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 recites the limitations “the portion of the respective second engagement level [emphasis added]”, “the third wheel”, “the fourth wheel”, “the further filter wheels” and “the respective outer circumference” on Line 3, Line 4, Line 4, Line 5 & Line 6, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the portion of the respective second engagement level”, “the third wheel”, “the fourth wheel”, “the further filter wheels” and “the respective outer circumference” are being interpreted as “a portion of a respective second engagement level [emphasis added]”, “a third wheel”, “a fourth wheel”, “further filter wheels” and “a respective outer circumference”, respectively.
Regarding Claim 4, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired (see MPEP § 2173.05(c)). In the present instance, Claim 4 recites the broad recitation "a region of 45% to 55%" on Line 5, and the claim also recites "in particular 48% to 52%, preferably 50%" on Lines 5-6 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of examination, the narrower language is considered optional and thus not required.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites the limitation “the respective filter wheel” on Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the respective filter wheel” is being interpreted as “the at least one first filter wheel or the second filter wheel”.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 recites the limitation “the respective outer circumference” on Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the respective outer circumference” is being interpreted as “a respective outer circumference”.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim recites “wherein the first filter wheel… has a driving portion comprising teeth distributed completely over the… outer circumference” on Lines 2-3. It is unclear whether these “teeth distributed completely over the outer circumference” include the “the teeth distributed along [the portion of] the outer circumference [of the first filter wheel]” previously recited on Lines 13-14 of Claim 1, or separate, different teeth. For the purpose of examination, the teeth distributed completely over the outer circumference of the first filter wheel are interpreted to include the teeth distributed along the portion of the outer circumference of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 recites the limitation “the connecting wheels” on Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the connecting wheels” is being interpreted as “the first connecting wheel”.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recites the limitation “the second rotary axle” on Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the second rotary axle” is being interpreted as “a second rotary axle”.
Regarding Claims 6, 8 & 1, Claims 6, 8 & 1 rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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, 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (hereinafter "Ma") (CN 117031864 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Ma, as best understood, discloses a filter changing apparatus ([0037]), the filter changing apparatus comprising:
a base plate (an envelope —understood to be an outer housing or base of the device; [0047]),
an optical passage comprising an optical axis ([0047]),
at least one first rotatable filter wheel (Fig. 1, 4; [0038]),
a second rotatable filter wheel (Fig. 1, 5; [0039]) and a rotatable first connecting wheel (Fig. 1, a driving assembly comprising 2 and 3; [0040] & [0041]) as well as a drive unit (Fig. 1, 1; [0042]) configured to drive one of the filter wheels ([0042]), the first filter wheel (Fig. 2, 4 has a plurality of 17 in which 8-12 are disposed therein; [0038] & [0047]) and the second filter wheel each having at least two receptacles for one optical filter each (Fig. 3, 5 has a plurality of 18 in which 13-16 are disposed therein; [0039] & [0047]), the filter wheels having a common first rotary axle (Fig. 1, 6; [0046]), the second filter wheel having a first engagement level (a driving-gear-engaging half; see Fig. 3) with teeth distributed over the entire outer circumference thereof (Fig. 3, 20; [0039]), and the first connecting wheel being designed as a gear with teeth distributed over the entire outer circumference thereof ([0040] & [0041]), wherein the first filter wheel has a portion comprising teeth distributed along the outer circumference thereof (Fig. 2, 19; [0038]), and the first connecting wheel is arranged on the outer circumference of the first filter wheel ([0040]) and on the outer circumference of the second filter wheel ([0041]) in such a way that the teeth of the portion of the first filter wheel can mesh with the teeth of the first connecting wheel for rotating the first connecting wheel ([0040]), and the teeth of the first connecting wheel can mesh with the teeth of the first engagement level of the second filter wheel ([0041]) so that when the first filter wheel is driven by means of the drive unit ([0043]), at least one receptacle of the first filter wheel and of the second filter wheel can be positioned in parallel in the optical passage ([0047]).
Regarding wherein the filter changing apparatus is for an endoscope camera, the intended use language “for an endoscope camera” does not positively recite any structural limitations so as to carry out the function, accordingly the prior art Ma, as best understood, can carry out the function, i.e. the intended use recited absent any specific structure recited to do so.
Regarding Claim 2, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 1. Ma further discloses wherein the filter changing apparatus has a second connecting wheel (a third-layer driving gear; [0044]), a third connecting wheel and/or optionally further connecting wheels and a third filter wheel (a third-layer filter wheel; [0044]), a fourth filter wheel and/or optionally further filter wheels, the third filter wheel, the fourth filter wheel and/or optionally each of the further filter wheels having at least one first engagement level with teeth distributed uniformly completely over the respective outer circumference ([0044]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 1. Ma further discloses wherein the second filter wheel, the third filter wheel, the fourth filter wheel and/or optionally each of the further filter wheels has or have a second engagement level (a non-gear-engaging half of 5; see Fig. 3) comprising a portion with teeth distributed along the respective outer circumference (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 1. Ma further discloses wherein the respective filter wheel has four receptacles (Fig. 3, 5 has four 18 wherein 13-16 are disposed; [0047]), six receptacles and/or optionally an even number of further receptacles for one optical filter each.
Regarding Claim 6, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 1. Ma further discloses wherein the drive unit has a single motor for driving the first filter wheel or a terminal filter wheel of the filter changing apparatus (Fig. 1, 1 is a servomotor; [0042]).
Regarding Claim 7, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 7. Ma further discloses wherein the first filter wheel or the terminal filter wheel has a drive portion comprising teeth distributed completely over the respective outer circumference (see Fig. 2) so that the first filter wheel or the terminal filter wheel can be driven via a drive gear by means of the one single motor ([0042]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 6. Ma further discloses wherein the first filter wheel or the terminal filter wheel has a shaft (Fig. 1, 7; [0046]) or a receptacle for a shaft along the first rotary axle for connection to the one single motor.
Regarding Claim 9, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 1. Ma further discloses wherein the connecting wheels have a common second rotary axle (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 1. Ma further discloses wherein the first rotary axle and/or the second rotary axle is or are arranged on the base plate (Fig. 1, for 4 and 5 to rotate with respect to 6, 6 must be fixed to the envelope; [0045]).
Regarding Claim 11, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 1. Ma further discloses wherein the filter changing apparatus has a holding device (Fig. 1, 7; [0045]) for holding a non-rotating filter wheel in its position during driving (Fig. 1, given that 4 and 5 are independently rotatable, during rotation of only either 4 or 5, 7 of the non-rotating 4 or 5 would hold it in its position during driving; [0045]).
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.
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (hereinafter "Ma") (CN 117031864 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 1.
Ma, as best understood, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the outer circumference of the portion of the first filter wheel has a teeth distribution of 45% to 55%.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the teeth distribution of the outer circumference of the portion of the first filter wheel of Ma be 45% to 55% since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the first filter wheel would not operate differently with the claimed teeth distribution. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that “in a[n]… embodiment of the filter change apparatus, the portion of the first filter wheel… has teeth in a region cover 45% to 55%” (see Para. [42] of Applicant’s specification).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashiyama et al. (hereinafter "Higashiyama") (US 2019/0076007) in view of Ma et al. (hereinafter "Ma") (CN 117031864 A).
Regarding Claim 12, Higashiyama discloses a camera head (Fig. 1, 14; [0038]) for an endoscope (Fig. 1, 11; [0038]), the camera head having an image sensor (Fig. 7, 233; [0107]), an opening (Fig. 7, 32; [0050]) for receiving light of an image ([0050]) along an optical path (Fig. 4, On; [0076]) and an optical lens system (Fig. 4, 20; [0043]) for focusing the light on the image sensor ([0044]), wherein the camera head has at least one filter changing apparatus (Fig. 7, 33; [0050]). Higashiyama fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one filter changing apparatus is the filter changing apparatus of Claim 1.
However, Ma, as best understood, teaches a filter changing apparatus ([0037]), the filter changing apparatus comprising:
a base plate (an envelope —understood to be an outer housing or base of the device; [0047]),
an optical passage comprising an optical axis ([0047]),
at least one first rotatable filter wheel (Fig. 1, 4; [0038]),
a second rotatable filter wheel (Fig. 1, 5; [0039]) and a rotatable first connecting wheel (Fig. 1, a driving assembly comprising 2 and 3; [0040] & [0041]) as well as a drive unit (Fig. 1, 1; [0042]) configured to drive one of the filter wheels ([0042]), the first filter wheel (Fig. 2, 4 has a plurality of 17 in which 8-12 are disposed therein; [0038] & [0047]) and the second filter wheel each having at least two receptacles for one optical filter each (Fig. 3, 5 has a plurality of 18 in which 13-16 are disposed therein; [0039] & [0047]), the filter wheels having a common first rotary axle (Fig. 1, 6; [0046]), the second filter wheel having a first engagement level (a driving-gear-engaging half; see Fig. 3) with teeth distributed over the entire outer circumference thereof (Fig. 3, 20; [0039]), and the first connecting wheel being designed as a gear with teeth distributed over the entire outer circumference thereof ([0040] & [0041]), wherein the first filter wheel has a portion comprising teeth distributed along the outer circumference thereof (Fig. 2, 19; [0038]), and the first connecting wheel is arranged on the outer circumference of the first filter wheel ([0040]) and on the outer circumference of the second filter wheel ([0041]) in such a way that the teeth of the portion of the first filter wheel can mesh with the teeth of the first connecting wheel for rotating the first connecting wheel ([0040]), and the teeth of the first connecting wheel can mesh with the teeth of the first engagement level of the second filter wheel ([0041]) so that when the first filter wheel is driven by means of the drive unit ([0043]), at least one receptacle of the first filter wheel and of the second filter wheel can be positioned in parallel in the optical passage ([0047]).
The advantage of the multilayer optical filter changing apparatus is to increase the number of filters (Ma; [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to replace the filter changing apparatus as disclosed by Higashiyama, with the multilayer optical filter changing apparatus taught by Ma, to increase the number of filters (Ma; [0029]).
Regarding Claim 13, Higashiyama discloses a retrofit kit (Fig. 1, 10; [0038]) for retrofitting a camera head (Fig. 1, 14; [0038]) and/or an endoscope (Fig. 1, 11; [0038]), wherein the retrofit kit has at least one filter changing apparatus (Fig. 7, 33; [0050]) so that the filter changing apparatus can be arranged between a proximal end of the endoscope and a distal end of the camera head (see Fig. 7). Higashiyama fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one filter changing apparatus is the filter changing apparatus of Claim 1.
However, Ma, as best understood, teaches a filter changing apparatus ([0037]), the filter changing apparatus comprising:
a base plate (an envelope —understood to be an outer housing or base of the device; [0047]),
an optical passage comprising an optical axis ([0047]),
at least one first rotatable filter wheel (Fig. 1, 4; [0038]),
a second rotatable filter wheel (Fig. 1, 5; [0039]) and a rotatable first connecting wheel (Fig. 1, a driving assembly comprising 2 and 3; [0040] & [0041]) as well as a drive unit (Fig. 1, 1; [0042]) configured to drive one of the filter wheels ([0042]), the first filter wheel (Fig. 2, 4 has a plurality of 17 in which 8-12 are disposed therein; [0038] & [0047]) and the second filter wheel each having at least two receptacles for one optical filter each (Fig. 3, 5 has a plurality of 18 in which 13-16 are disposed therein; [0039] & [0047]), the filter wheels having a common first rotary axle (Fig. 1, 6; [0046]), the second filter wheel having a first engagement level (a driving-gear-engaging half; see Fig. 3) with teeth distributed over the entire outer circumference thereof (Fig. 3, 20; [0039]), and the first connecting wheel being designed as a gear with teeth distributed over the entire outer circumference thereof ([0040] & [0041]), wherein the first filter wheel has a portion comprising teeth distributed along the outer circumference thereof (Fig. 2, 19; [0038]), and the first connecting wheel is arranged on the outer circumference of the first filter wheel ([0040]) and on the outer circumference of the second filter wheel ([0041]) in such a way that the teeth of the portion of the first filter wheel can mesh with the teeth of the first connecting wheel for rotating the first connecting wheel ([0040]), and the teeth of the first connecting wheel can mesh with the teeth of the first engagement level of the second filter wheel ([0041]) so that when the first filter wheel is driven by means of the drive unit ([0043]), at least one receptacle of the first filter wheel and of the second filter wheel can be positioned in parallel in the optical passage ([0047]).
The advantage of the multilayer optical filter changing apparatus is to increase the number of filters (Ma; [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to replace the filter changing apparatus as disclosed by Higashiyama, with the multilayer optical filter changing apparatus taught by Ma, to increase the number of filters (Ma; [0029]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2022/0326592; US 2021/0215920; US 2021/0010659; US 2014/0135581; US 2009/0052185; US 2003/0184853; U.S. 6,231,503; U.S. 5,142,359; U.S. 4,800,474 and U.S. 4,524,383.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CAREY can be reached at (571)270-7235. 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.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights