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
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/21/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species C in the reply filed on 7/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 19368134, 18932620 and 18391849, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically the prior-filed applications fail to provide adequate support or enablement for “a camera motor (33) for adjusting a focal length thereof, and the camera motor (33) is electrically connected to an external control device, the focus acquisition device (30) is capable of automatically adjusting the focal length, or the focus acquisition device (30) is capable of being manually adjusted the focal length through the external control device.”
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 recites “first control board (51)”. This is believed to be a typographical error and should be corrected to be “first control board (32).” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 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 limitation "the focus acquisition device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes this limitation will be interpreted as the image acquisition device.
Claims 2-12 are similarly rejected due to dependency to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3. Claim 3 recites “the driver/adjuster.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes this limitation will be interpreted as driving/adjusting device.
Claims 4 is similarly rejected due to dependency to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200186683 A1 to Warren et al. in view of US 20210382559 A1 to Segev et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Warren discloses a pipeline endoscopic probe, comprising: a shell (10) comprising an accommodating chamber (11) (Fig. 2B front housing subassembly 222 and rear housing subassembly 224) and an image acquisition window (12) (Fig. 2C window 242) in communication with the accommodating chamber (11) (See Fig. 2C); and an image acquisition device (30) (See Fig. 2B imager 244) positioned within the accommodating chamber (11) (See Fig. 2B and Fig. 2C) and oriented toward the image acquisition window (12) (See Fig. 2C) to acquire image;
Warren does not specifically disclose that the image acquisition device (30) includes a camera motor (33) for adjusting a focal length thereof, and the camera motor (33) is electrically connected to an external control device, the focus acquisition device (30) is capable of automatically adjusting the focal length, or the focus acquisition device (30) is capable of being manually adjusted the focal length through the external control device.
However, Segev discloses an image acquisition device (30) includes a camera motor (33) for adjusting a focal length thereof (See para 418 “the lens focus motors integrated with cameras”), and the camera motor (33) is electrically connected to an external control device, the focus acquisition device (30) is capable of automatically adjusting the focal length, or the focus acquisition device (30) is capable of being manually adjusted the focal length through the external control device (See para 417) to change the focus plane (See para 418). One would have been motivated to include the features of Segev in the endoscope probe of Warren in order to remotely adjust the focusing of the endoscope probe.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the image acquisition device (30) includes a camera motor (33) for adjusting a focal length thereof, and the camera motor (33) is electrically connected to an external control device, the focus acquisition device (30) is capable of automatically adjusting the focal length, or the focus acquisition device (30) is capable of being manually adjusted the focal length through the external control device.
Regarding Claim 2. Segev further discloses a driving/adjusting device connected to the image acquisition device (30) and is used to adjust an image acquisition angle of the image acquisition device (30), ensuring that an image displayed on a display (15) connected to the image acquisition device (30) remains upright (See para 119).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights