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 1-14 are pending and rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 11 & 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one first housing part” on Line 3. A further recitation of this limitation on Line 6 recites “the first housing part”. Examiner kindly requests Applicant amend this limitation to read “the at least one first housing part” to provide consistent claim language throughout.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitations “the rotatable drive gear can engage with each filter gear [emphasis added]” and “the at least two filter holder arms can be simultaneously rotated [emphasis added]” on Line 14 and Lines 15-16, respectively. Examiner kindly request Applicant amend these limitations to read “the rotatable drive gear is configured to engage with each filter gear [emphasis added]” and “the at least two filter holder arms are configured to be simultaneously rotated [emphasis added]”, respectively, to better conform to U.S. patent practice and avoid ambiguity whether these limitations are considered optional.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 recites the limitation “a first filter holder arm can be arranged [emphasis added]” on Line 4. Examiner kindly request Applicant amend this limitation to read “a first filter holder arm is configured to be arranged [emphasis added]” to better conform to U.S. patent practice and avoid ambiguity whether this limitation is considered optional.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 recites the limitation “the first housing part” on Line 3. Examiner kindly requests Applicant amend this limitation to read “the at least one first housing part” to provide consistent claim language throughout.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 recites the limitation “the drive gear can be freely externally driven [emphasis added]” on Lines 4-5. Examiner kindly request Applicant amend this limitation to read “the drive gear is configured to be freely externally driven [emphasis added]” to better conform to U.S. patent practice and avoid ambiguity whether this limitation is considered optional.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 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 14, Claim 14 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 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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitations are:
“means of a rotary shaft” in Claim 1.
“means of a transition portion” in Claim 5.
“means of a securing element” in Claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/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 3-8 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 3, Claim 3 recites the limitations “the distance”, “the maximum outer diameter” and “the region” on Line 2, Line 4 & Lines 4-5, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the distance”, “the maximum outer diameter” and “the region” are being interpreted as “a distance”, “a maximum outer diameter” and “a region”, respectively.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation “the filter center axis and the axis of rotation of a filter holder arm” on Lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this “filter center axis”, this “axis of rotation” and this “filter holder arm” are the same as the respective “filter center axis”, “the respective axis of rotation” and the “at least two filter holder arms” previously recited in Claim 1, or a separate, different filter center axis, a separate, different axis of rotation and a separate, different filter holder arm, respectively. For the purpose of examination, “the filter center axis and the axis of rotation of a filter holder arm” is being interpreted as “the respective filter center axis and the respective axis of rotation of a filter holder arm of the at least two filter holder arms”.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation “the filter receptacle” on Line 5. It is unclear whether this “filter receptacle” is the same as the respective “filter receptacle” of the at least two filter holder arms, previously recited in Claim 1, or a separate, different filter receptacle. For the purpose of examination, “the filter receptacle” is being interpreted as “the respective filter receptacle”.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 recites the limitations “the distance”, “the maximum outer diameter” and “the region” on Line 2, Line 4 & Line 5, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the distance”, “the maximum outer diameter” and “the region” are being interpreted as “a distance”, “a maximum outer diameter” and “a region”, respectively.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 recites the limitation “two axes of rotation of two filter holder arms” on Lines 2-3. It is unclear whether these “axes of rotation” are the same as “the axes of rotation [of the at least two filter holder arms]” previously recited on Line 11 of Claim 1, or separate, different axes of rotation, and it is unclear whether these “two filter holder arms” are the same as the “at least two filter holder arms” previously recited on Line 6 of Claim 1, or separate, different filter holder arms. For the purpose of examination, “two axes of rotation of two filter holder arms” is being interpreted as “the two axes of rotation of at least two filter holder arms”.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 recites the limitation “the filter receptacle” on Line 5. It is unclear whether this “filter receptacle” is the same as the respective “filter receptacle” of the at least two filter holder arms, previously recited in Claim 1, or a separate, different filter receptacle. For the purpose of examination, “the filter receptacle” is being interpreted as “the respective filter receptacle”.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites the limitation “the rotary shaft arranged thereon” on Line 3. It is unclear whether this “rotary shaft” is the same as the “respective rotary shaft [of each filter arm holder]” previously recited on Line 13 of Claim 1, or a separate, different rotary shaft. For the purpose of examination, “the rotary shaft arranged thereon” is being interpreted as “the respective rotary shaft thereon”.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites the limitation “the filter receptacle” on Line 4. It is unclear whether this “filter receptacle” is the same as the respective “filter receptacle” of the at least two filter holder arms, previously recited in Claim 1, or a separate, different filter receptacle. For the purpose of examination, “the filter receptacle” is being interpreted as “the respective filter receptacle”.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 recites the limitation “the height of the first arm portion [emphasis added]” on Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the height of the first arm portion” is being interpreted as “a height of the first arm portion [emphasis added]”.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 recites the limitations “a first filter holder arm” and “a second filter holder arm” on Line 4 and Line 5, respectively. It is unclear whether these “first/second filter holder arms” are the same as the “at least two filter holder arms previously recited on Line 6 of Claim 1, or separate, different filter holder arms. For the purpose of examination, “a first filter holder arm” and “a second filter holder arm” are being interpreted as “a first filter holder arm of the at least two filter holder arms” and “a second filter holder arm of the at least two filter holder arms”, respectively.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 recites the limitations “the difference”, “the maximum height of the second arm portion [emphasis added]”, “the maximum height of the first arm portion [emphasis added]” and “the maximum material thickness” on Line 2, Lines 2-3, Lines 3-4 and Line 4, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the difference”, “the maximum height of the second arm portion”, “the maximum height of the first arm portion” and “the maximum material thickness” are being interpreted as “a difference”, “a maximum height of a second arm portion [emphasis added]”, “a maximum height of a first arm portion [emphasis added]” and “a maximum material thickness”, respectively.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is 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.
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 1-2, 5-6, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (hereinafter "Ma") (CN 117031864).
Regarding Claim 1, Ma, as best understood, discloses a filter changing apparatus ([0037]), wherein the filter changing apparatus comprises:
a housing having at least one first housing part (an envelope —understood to be an enclosed housing with a plurality of walls enveloping the components therein; [0047])
an optical passage along an optical axis ([0047]),
a rotatable drive gear (Fig. 1, a driving assembly comprising 2 and 3; [0040] & [0041]), and
at least two filter holder arms (Fig. 1, 4 and 5; [0038] & [0039]) each having a filter receptacle for an optical filter (Figs. 2 & 3, 4 has a plurality of 17 in which 8-12 are disposed therein and 5 has a plurality of 18 in which 13-16 are disposed therein; [0038], [0039] & [0047]) having a filter center axis (each of 8-12 & 13-16 have center axes; see Figs. 2 & 3), wherein the at least two filter holder arms are each rotatably arranged on the first housing part by means of a rotary shaft (Fig. 1, 6; [0046]) having an axis of rotation (an axis of rotation; see Figs. 2 & 3), wherein the respective axis of rotation is spaced apart from the filter center axis of each filter holder arm (center axes of 8-12 are each spaced apart from the axis of rotation of 4 by R1 and center axes of 13-16 are each spaced apart from the axis of rotation of 5 by R2; see Figs. 2 & 3) and the axes of rotation are arranged in parallel with one another (see Fig. 1), wherein on each filter holder arm, a filter gear is arranged around the respective rotary shaft (Figs. 2 & 3, 19 of 4 and 20 of 5; [0038] & [0039]), and the rotatable drive gear can engage in each filter gear ([0040] & [0041]), so that, when the rotatable drive gear is driven solely by engaging with the filter gears ([0040] & [0041]), the at least two filter holder arms can be simultaneously rotated and/or pivoted into and/or out of the optical passage ([0040] & [0041]).
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 third filter holder arm (a third-layer filter wheel; [0044]), a fourth filter holder arm, a fifth filter holder arm, and/or optionally further filter holder arms.
Regarding Claim 5, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 1. Ma further discloses wherein each filter holder arm has a first arm portion having the rotary shaft arranged thereon (inner radial portions of 4 and 5; see Figs. 2 & 3) and a second arm portion having the filter receptacle arranged thereon (outer radial portions of 4 and 5; see Figs. 2 & 3), wherein the two arm portions are connected by means of a transition portion (intermediate radial portions of 4 and 5; see Figs. 2 & 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 6. Ma further discloses wherein the first arm portion and the second arm portion are spaced apart from one another in a direction along the axis of rotation (see Figs. 2 & 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 1. Ma further discloses wherein each rotary shaft is connected to the at least one housing part by means of a securing element (Fig. 1, 7; [0045]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 1. Ma further discloses wherein the drive gear has an internal toothing and/or an external toothing (2 and 3 of the driving assembly are each externally toothed; see Figs. 2 & 3).
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 second housing part, and the first housing part and the second housing part are connected to one another in their interior or on their exterior so that the drive gear can be freely externally driven and/or rotated over its entire circumference (given that envelope envelops the components therein, there must be a second housing part opposite the first housing part and joined therein to form an outer housing; [0047]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 1. Ma further discloses wherein the filter changing apparatus has a motor (Fig. 1, 1; [0042]) for driving the rotatable drive gear ([0042]).
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.
Claims 3-4 & 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (hereinafter "Ma") (CN 117031864).
Regarding Claim 3, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 1. Ma, as best understood, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the distance between the filter center axis and the axis of rotation of a filter holder arm is 0.80-times to 1.10-times the maximum outer diameter of the filter holder arm in the region of the filter receptacle.
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 distance between the filter center axis and the axis of rotation of Ma to be 0.80-times t 1.10-times the maximum outer diameter of the filter holder arm in the region of the filter receptacle 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, filter holder arm would not operate differently with the claimed distance. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that “the distance between the filter center axis and the axis of rotation of a filter holder arm can be 0.80-times to 1.10- times the maximum outer diameter of the filter holder arm in the region of the filter receptacle” (see Para. [42] of Applicant’s specification).
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 distance between two axes of rotation of two filter holder arms is 1.05-times to 1.50-times the maximum outer diameter of the respective filter holder arm in the region of the filter receptacle.
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 distance between two axes of rotation of two filter holder arms of Ma to be 1.05-times to 1.50-times the maximum outer diameter of the respective filter holder arm in the region of the filter receptacle 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 two filter holder arms would not operate differently with the claimed distance. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that “in a[n]… embodiment of the filter changing apparatus, the distance between two rotation axes of two filter holder arms is 1.05-times to 1.50-times the maximum outer diameter of the respective filter holder arm in the region of the filter receptacle” (see Para. [43] of Applicant’s specification.
Regarding Claim 7, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 1. Ma, as best understood, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second arm portion is arranged at a greater height than a height of the first arm portion in a direction along the axis of rotation so that a second arm portion of a first filter holder arm can be arranged and/or rotated at least partially over a first arm portion of a second filter holder arm.
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 height of the second arm portion of Ma to be greater than the height of the first arm portion in the direction along the axis of rotation 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 and second arm portions would not operate differently with the claimed heights. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that “the second arm portion can be arranged at a greater height than the height of the first arm portion in a direction along the axis of rotation such that a second arm portion of a first filter holder arm can be arranged and/or rotated at least partially over a first arm portion of a second filter holder arm” (See Para. [52] of Applicant’s specification). As such, the modified second arm portion of the first filter arm holder of Ma would be capable of being arranged and/or rotated at least partially over the modified first arm portion of the second filter arm holder of Ma.
Regarding Claim 8, Ma, as best understood, discloses the filter changing apparatus according to Claim 1. Ma, as best understood, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the difference between the maximum height of the second arm portion and the maximum height of the first arm portion is 1.00-times to 1.50-times the maximum material thickness of the second arm portion in a direction along the axis of rotation.
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 difference between the maximum height of the second arm portion and the maximum height of the first arm portion of Ma to be 1.00-times to 1.50-times the maximum material thickness of the second arm portion in a direction along the axis of rotation 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 and second arm portions would not operate differently with the claimed distance. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that “in a[n] embodiment of the filter changing apparatus, the difference between the maximum height of the second arm portion and the maximum height of the first arm portion is 1.00-times to 1.50-times the maximum material thickness of the second arm portion in a direction along the axis of rotation” (see Para. [54] of Applicant’s specification).
Claims 13-14 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).
Regarding Claim 13, Higashiyama discloses a camera head (Fig. 1, 14; [0038]) for an endoscope (Fig. 1, 11; [0038]), wherein the camera head has 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]), wherein the filter changing apparatus comprises:
a housing having at least one first housing part (an envelope —understood to be an enclosed housing with a plurality of walls enveloping the components therein; [0047])
an optical passage along an optical axis ([0047]),
a rotatable drive gear (Fig. 1, a driving assembly comprising 2 and 3; [0040] & [0041]), and
at least two filter holder arms (Fig. 1, 4 and 5; [0038] & [0039]) each having a filter receptacle for an optical filter (Figs. 2 & 3, 4 has a plurality of 17 in which 8-12 are disposed therein and 5 has a plurality of 18 in which 13-16 are disposed therein; [0038], [0039] & [0047]) having a filter center axis (each of 8-12 & 13-16 have center axes; see Figs. 2 & 3), wherein the at least two filter holder arms are each rotatably arranged on the first housing part by means of a rotary shaft (Fig. 1, 6; [0046]) having an axis of rotation (an axis of rotation; see Figs. 2 & 3), wherein the respective axis of rotation is spaced apart from the filter center axis of each filter holder arm (center axes of 8-12 are each spaced apart from the axis of rotation of 4 by R1 and center axes of 13-16 are each spaced apart from the axis of rotation of 5 by R2; see Figs. 2 & 3) and the axes of rotation are arranged in parallel with one another (see Fig. 1), wherein on each filter holder arm, a filter gear is arranged around the respective rotary shaft (Figs. 2 & 3, 19 of 4 and 20 of 5; [0038] & [0039]), and the rotatable drive gear can engage in each filter gear ([0040] & [0041]), so that, when the rotatable drive gear is driven solely by engaging with the filter gears ([0040] & [0041]), the at least two filter holder arms can be simultaneously rotated and/or pivoted into and/or out of the optical passage ([0040] & [0041]).
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 14, 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]) such 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]), wherein the filter changing apparatus comprises:
a housing having at least one first housing part (an envelope —understood to be an enclosed housing with a plurality of walls enveloping the components therein; [0047])
an optical passage along an optical axis ([0047]),
a rotatable drive gear (Fig. 1, a driving assembly comprising 2 and 3; [0040] & [0041]), and
at least two filter holder arms (Fig. 1, 4 and 5; [0038] & [0039]) each having a filter receptacle for an optical filter (Figs. 2 & 3, 4 has a plurality of 17 in which 8-12 are disposed therein and 5 has a plurality of 18 in which 13-16 are disposed therein; [0038], [0039] & [0047]) having a filter center axis (each of 8-12 & 13-16 have center axes; see Figs. 2 & 3), wherein the at least two filter holder arms are each rotatably arranged on the first housing part by means of a rotary shaft (Fig. 1, 6; [0046]) having an axis of rotation (an axis of rotation; see Figs. 2 & 3), wherein the respective axis of rotation is spaced apart from the filter center axis of each filter holder arm (center axes of 8-12 are each spaced apart from the axis of rotation of 4 by R1 and center axes of 13-16 are each spaced apart from the axis of rotation of 5 by R2; see Figs. 2 & 3) and the axes of rotation are arranged in parallel with one another (see Fig. 1), wherein on each filter holder arm, a filter gear is arranged around the respective rotary shaft (Figs. 2 & 3, 19 of 4 and 20 of 5; [0038] & [0039]), and the rotatable drive gear can engage in each filter gear ([0040] & [0041]), so that, when the rotatable drive gear is driven solely by engaging with the filter gears ([0040] & [0041]), the at least two filter holder arms can be simultaneously rotated and/or pivoted into and/or out of the optical passage ([0040] & [0041]).
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 2023/0025519; US 2020/0400929; US 2019/0173987; US 2017/0360276; US 2014/0104713; US 2013/0163092; US 2011/0194197; US 2009/0323355; US 2009/00059592; US 2005/0004435; U.S. 4,549,787 and U.S. 4,043,646.
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