DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 05/18/2026 has been entered.
As indicated by the amendment submitted with the request for continued examination: claims 1, 8-9, 43 and 50-52 have been amended, claims 21-42 have been cancelled, and new claims 57-60 have been added. In response to the amendment of claim 1, its rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, is withdrawn. In response to the cancellation of claim 36, its rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, is rendered moot. In response to the amendments of claims 1, 8-9 and 50, their rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn. In response to the amendment of claim 43 and remarks regarding claim 49, the rejections of claim 49 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and (b), or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), first and second paragraphs, are withdrawn. In response to the cancellation of claims 21, 35, 40 and 41, their rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are rendered moot.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13 and 43-60 are presently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 58 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding new claim 58, it recites “wherein the cable is 11 feet in length”. Nowhere in the specification, as originally filed, a length of the cable recited. Accordingly, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding new claim 60, it recites “wherein the touchscreen display is configured with a graphic user interface having a plurality of touch actuated icons to operate the camera parameters” (emphasis added). Although the specification, as originally filed, discloses the graphic user interface having a plurality of touch actuated icons, it does not disclose that they are configured to operate the camera parameters (see par. [0061] and [0106] of the published application). Accordingly, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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 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.
Claims 1-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung et al. (US 2010/0217080 A1) in view of Gill et al. (US 2008/0064925 A1) in view of Kucklick et al. (US 2005/0234298 A1) in view of Fowler et al. (US 2010/0081875 A1) in view of Kim (US 2016/0331213 A1) in view of Medler et al. (US 2012/0162401 A1) in view of Navok et al. (US 2006/0173242 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cheung discloses an endoscopic the endoscope body (32) including a camera (par. [0041]-[0042]) that is connected to the display device and wherein a light source (par. [0043], [0039] and [0040]) in the handle (32) that is configured to operate in response to at least one of an endoscope control element (par. [0041] – input controls for controlling the light source) and a touch actuated control on the touchscreen display, the control element (par. [0041] – input controls) being configured to operate the camera to take at least one of images and video of an at least one of tissue, a body channel and arthroscopic joints (capable of this intended use), the tubular endoscope device being insertable through the cannula channel (Fig. 3), the tubular endoscope device further comprising an annular array of optical fibers (78; Fig. 8B; par. [0052]-[0053]) that are optically connected to the light source (par. [0053]) in the endoscope handle (32; par. [0043]-[0044] and [0053]-[0054]; Fig. 2).
Although Cheung discloses the sheath having a distal window (16) to image the field of view, it does not specifically disclose the sheath having a distal element defining a field of view. Additionally, Cheung does not specifically disclose. Gill teaches an analogous endoscope system wherein the tubular sheath (204; Fig. 24B; par. [0151]) has a distal optical element (560/562/564/566; Fig. 24B; par. [0151]) defining a field of view. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the distal end optical assembly of Gill for that of Cheung, being a simple substitution of one known optical configuration for another, having predictable results.
Although Cheung discloses the endoscope (36) and tubular sheath (10/12) being inserted into a channel of the cannula (50; Fig. 2; par. [0047]) for minimally invasive surgery, it does not specifically disclose the system including an arthroscopic tool operatively configured for insertion through another cannula channel of a cannula, the cannula having an outer diameter of less than 4mm. Kucklick teaches an analogous endoscope system wherein an endoscope (2) and an arthroscopic tool (par. [0048]; Fig. 11) are inserted into a cannula (3; Figs. 11 and 12) having a working channel (56; first cannula channel) for the arthroscopic tool and a lumen (second cannula channel) for the endoscope (2; Fig. 12). Additionally, Kucklick teaches that when the cannula (3) is manufactured for use with arthroscopic instruments in smaller joints, it has an outer diameter measuring about 2-5mm (par. [0041] and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cannula of Cheung with that of Kucklick, including a working channel for an arthroscopic tool, and to provide the arthroscopic tool, in order reduce the number of incisions made during surgery, thereby minimizing the invasiveness of surgery, by allowing the surgeon to view the surgical site and perform a procedure through one cannula and incision.
Although Cheung discloses that the light source comprises a light emitting diode (LED) (par. [0041] and [0043] – illumination source), it does not specifically disclose that LED is white. Fowler teaches an analogous device wherein the light source includes a white light emitting diode that is useful due to its small package size, lifespan and color temperature (par. [0097]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a white LED in the device of Cheung thereby taking advantage of their small package size, lifespan and color temperature, as taught by Fowler.
However, Cheung does not specifically disclose that is display device is a tablet display device having a battery, a touchscreen display, a system controller, a video signal processor, and a light source controller within the table display device, the touchscreen display being configured to actuate electrical power and control a light source with the light source controller. Kim teaches a tablet controlled endoscopic system (Fig. 3), wherein the device is a tablet display device (130) having a battery (par. [0091]), a touchscreen display (152; par. [0063]), a system controller (par. [0089] – endoscope driving application), a video signal processor (par. [0073]-[0076]), and a light source controller, (par. [0070], remote control), the touchscreen display (152) being configured to actuate electrical power (turn on/off the light source and also actuates electrical power via remote control to control bending of the endoscope – par. [0093]) and control a light source with the light source controller (par. [0070]; remote control). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the display device of Cheung a battery powered tablet display device connected to the endoscope, as taught by Kim, thereby allowing the operating room personnel to view images captured by the endoscope and control endoscopic operations in real time, as taught by Kim.
Cheung does not specifically disclose wherein a touch actuated camera control unit within the tablet display device controls operation of a camera having an image sensor in single chip package for imaging of a from the single chip package to the tablet display device. Medler teaches a tablet controlled endoscopic system (Figs. 8 and 16), comprising a tablet display device (409; par. [0120]; Fig. 16) wherein a touch actuated camera control unit (par. [0131]- software application providing a graphical user interface to provide input) within the tablet display device (409) controls operation of a camera including having an image sensor (par. [0111] – CMOS image sensor) for imaging of a surgical procedure (endoscopy). Medler also teaches the endoscope having a connector device (portion of endoscope that connects to 70; Fig. 3; par. [0052]; see also par. [0121] – composite video output or RCA jack) that communicates raw image data (par. [0123]) to the tablet display device (36/409; par. [0123]; Figs. 3, 6 and 16) with a cable (80; Figs. 3 and 6). Medler teaches that the image processing functions are then performed upon the raw image at the tablet display device (par. [0123]). Medler further teaches that either the endoscope can transmit the raw image data to the tablet display device for image processing by the tablet display device (par. [0123]) or that the endoscope can process the raw image data and transmit it to the tablet display device (par. [0124]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the touch actuated camera control unit in the tablet display of modified Cheung, in order to allow the operator to control the imaging components of the device, as taught by Medler. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to communicate raw image data to the tablet display device for processing in the tablet display device as a substitution of one known method of image data transmission and processing for another, as taught by Medler, having the predictable result of displaying processed image data. As discussed above, Medler teaches use of both methods in the alternative. Further, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a single chip package CMOS image sensor because Applicant has not disclosed that the single chip package CMOS image sensor provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In the specification, as originally filed, “a single chip CMOS” is only mentioned in paragraph [0134] of the published application. In this paragraph, Applicant explicitly states that sensors such as a single chip CMOS or a three chip CMOS can be used (see par. [0134] of the published application). Applicant explicitly discloses that either a single chip or multi-chip CMOS image sensor is compatible with the system. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected modified Cheung’s system, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the CMOS sensor taught by modified Cheung or the claimed single chip package because both sensors would perform the same function of imaging a body cavity, and Applicant has disclosed that either a single chip CMOS senor or a multi-chip CMOS sensor can be used with the sensor. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Cheung to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of modified Cheung.
Although modified Cheung teaches that the endoscope handle (32) includes a light source (par. [0043], [0039] and [0040]) that is configured to operate in response to an endoscope control element (par. [0041] – input controls for controlling the light source), it does not specifically disclose that the light source is connected to a light source controller that is configured to operate in response to the endoscope control element. Navok teaches an analogous endoscope handle (50) having a light source (65; Fig. 15; par. [0070]) that is connected to a light source controller (62/electronic device within endoscope; see par. [0107]-[0108]) configured to operate in response to a endoscope control element (60; Figs. 11A and 15; par. [0107]-[0108]). Navok teaches that the benefit of this configuration is to provide a mechanism for controlling the operation of the endoscope (20) without interfering with the hermetic enclosure of the handle (50) for autoclaving/sterilization (par. [0108]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the light source controller/mechanism of Navok to the system of modified Cheung in order to provide a mechanism for controlling the operation of the endoscope without interfering with the hermetic enclosure of the handle for autoclaving/sterilization, as taught by Navok.
Regarding claim 2, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Kucklick in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler in view of Navok disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the system further comprises a fluid insertion connector (Cheung: 51; Kucklick: 24/29; par. [0033]; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Kucklick in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler in view of Navok disclose the system of claim 1, and Gill teaches substitution of a prism assembly for the optical assembly such that an angle of view of the tubular endoscope device is offset from an insertion axis of the tubular endoscope device in order to provide angled viewing (Gill: par. [0101] and [0155]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the prism assembly of Gill instead of the optical assembly in order to provide angled viewing, as taught by Gill.
Regarding claim 4, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Kucklick in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler in view of Navok disclose the system of claim 3 wherein the angle of view is defined by an angle relative to the insertion axis in a range of 5-45 degrees (Gill: par. [0101] and [0155]).
Regarding claim 5, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Kucklick in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler in view of Navok disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the tubular endoscope device (10/12) comprises a tubular body having an inner tube (72; Fig. 8A; par. [0052]) and an outer sheath (70; Fig. 8A; par. [0052]).
Regarding claim 6, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Kucklick in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler in view of Navok disclose the system of claim 5 wherein the outer sheath (70/12) has a diameter of 2 mm or less (par. [0010], [0012] and [0052]).
Regarding claim 7, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Kucklick in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler in view of Navok disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the single chip package comprises a CMOS sensor clocked to communicate serial RGB raw data (Medler: par. [0111] and [0123]) with the tablet display device (Medler: par. [0123]).
Regarding claim 8, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Kucklick in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler in view of Navok disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the touchscreen display (Kim: 130/152) is connected to a touch processor that is operable in response to a plurality of touch icons and touch gestures associated with a graphical user interface (GUI), and wherein the camera control unit (Medler: par. [0131]- software application providing a graphical user interface to provide input) actuates [[the]] a white balance operation and sets one or more parameters for an image sensor of the camera (Medler: par. [0131]).
Regarding claim 9, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Kucklick in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler in view of Navok disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the the cable (30; Medler: 80).
Regarding claim 13, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Kucklick in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler in view of Navok disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the cannula (Kucklick: 3) comprises a single cannula body (Kucklick: Figs. 11 and 12) that includes the first cannula channel (56) that can receive (is capable of receiving) a plurality of tools in sequence (Fig. 12).
Claims 43-46, 48 and 50-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung et al. (US 2010/0217080 A1) in view of Gill et al. (US 2008/0064925 A1) in view of Fowler et al. (US 2010/0081875 A1) in view of Kim (US 2016/0331213 A1) in view of Medler et al. (US 2012/0162401 A1).
Regarding claim 43, Cheung discloses an endoscopic imaging probe (10/12), the endoscope connected to the handle, the camera (par. [0041]-[0042]) being connected to the display device and configured to operate in response to at least one of an endoscope user control element (par. [0041] – input controls for recording video and still images) and a touch actuated camera control on the touchscreen display, the user control element (par. [0041] – input controls) being configured to operate the camera to take at least one of images and video of a region of at least one of tissue, a body channel and a joint during a surgical procedure (par. [0041] – input controls for recording video and still images the handle control element being configured to operate the camera to take at least one of images and video of a surgical procedure); wherein the [[a]] tubular imaging probe (10/12) has a diameter of 3 mm or less (par. [0009]-[0010]) for insertion into at least one of tissue, a body channel and arthroscopic joints (capable of this intended use
Although Cheung discloses the sheath having a distal window (16) to image the field of view, it does not specifically disclose the sheath having a distal element defining a field of view. Additionally, Cheung does not specifically disclose. Gill teaches an analogous endoscope system wherein the tubular sheath (204; Fig. 24B; par. [0151]) has a distal optical element (560/562/564/566; Fig. 24B; par. [0151]) defining a field of view. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the distal end optical assembly of Gill for that of Cheung, being a simple substitution of one known optical configuration for another, having predictable results.
Although Cheung discloses that the light source comprises a light emitting diode (LED) (par. [0041] and [0043] – illumination source), it does not specifically disclose that LED is white. Fowler teaches an analogous device wherein the light source includes a white light emitting diode that is useful due to its small package size, lifespan and color temperature (par. [0097]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a white LED in the device of Cheung thereby taking advantage of their small package size, lifespan and color temperature, as taught by Fowler.
However, Cheung does not specifically disclose that is display device is a tablet display device having a battery, a touchscreen display, a video signal processor within the tablet display device, and the touchscreen display being configured to control delivery of power and control a light source. Kim teaches a tablet controlled endoscopic system (Fig. 3), wherein the device is a tablet display device (130) having a battery (par. [0091]), a touchscreen display (152; par. [0063]), a video signal processor (par. [0073]-[0076]), the touchscreen display (152) being configured to control delivery of power (turn on/off the light source – see par. [0070], and also actuates electrical power via remote control to control bending of the endoscope – see par. [0093]) and control a light source with a light source controller (par. [0070]; remote control). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the display device of Cheung a touchscreen, battery powered tablet display device having a video signal processor, connected to the endoscope, as taught by Kim, thereby allowing the operating room personnel to view images captured by the endoscope and control endoscopic operations in real time, as taught by Kim.
Cheung does not specifically disclose wherein the tablet display device having a system controller, wherein the system controller further comprises a touch actuated camera control unit that controls operation of a camera single chip package including setting parameters of an image sensor within the camera single chip package, or that the camera single chip package communicates raw image data from the camera single chip package to the tablet display device with a cable connected to the handle. Medler teaches a tablet controlled endoscopic system (Figs. 8 and 16), comprising a tablet display device (409; par. [0120]; Fig. 16) having a system controller (par. [0131] – special-purpose software), wherein the system controller further comprises a touch actuated camera control unit (par. [0131]- software application allows the user image setting parameters of the image sensor such as white balance, exposure, hue and lighting variable) within the tablet display device (409) that controls operation of a camera including having an image sensor (par. [0111] – CMOS image sensor) for imaging of a surgical procedure (endoscopy). Medler also teaches the endoscope having a connector device (portion of endoscope that connects to 70; Fig. 3; par. [0052]; see also par. [0121] – composite video output or RCA jack) that communicates raw image data (par. [0123]) of the camera to the tablet display device (36/409; par. [0123]; Figs. 3, 6 and 16) with a cable (80; Figs. 3 and 6). Medler teaches that the image processing functions are then performed upon the raw image at the tablet display device (par. [0123]). Medler further teaches that either the endoscope can transmit the raw image data to the tablet display device for image processing by the tablet display device (par. [0123]) or that the endoscope can process the raw image data and transmit it to the tablet display device (par. [0124]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the touch actuated camera control unit in the tablet display of modified Cheung, in order to allow the operator to control the imaging components of the device, as taught by Medler. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to communicate raw image data to the tablet display device for processing in the tablet display device as a substitution of one known method of image data transmission and processing for another, as taught by Medler, having the predictable result of displaying processed image data. As discussed above, Medler teaches use of both methods in the alternative. Further, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a single chip package CMOS image sensor because Applicant has not disclosed that the single chip package CMOS image sensor provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In the specification, as originally filed, “a single chip CMOS” is only mentioned in paragraph [0134] of the published application. In this paragraph, Applicant explicitly states that sensors such as a single chip CMOS or a three chip CMOS can be used (see par. [0134] of the published application). Applicant explicitly discloses that either a single chip or multi-chip CMOS image sensor is compatible with the system. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected modified Cheung’s system, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the CMOS sensor taught by modified Cheung or the claimed single chip package because both sensors would perform the same function of imaging a body cavity, and Applicant has disclosed that either a single chip CMOS senor or a multi-chip CMOS sensor can be used with the sensor. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Cheung to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of modified Cheung.
Regarding claim 44, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler disclose the system of claim 43 wherein the system further comprises a fluid insertion connector (Cheung: 51).
Regarding claim 45, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler disclose the system of claim 43 wherein the tubular imaging probe (10/12) comprises a tubular body having an inner tube (72; Fig. 8A; par. [0052]) and an outer sheath (70; Fig. 8A; par. [0052]).
Regarding claim 46, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler disclose the system of claim 45 wherein the outer sheath (70/12) has a diameter of 2 mm or less (par. [0010], [0012] and [0052]).
Regarding claim 48, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler disclose the system of claim 43, wherein the touchscreen display (Kim: 130/152) is connected to a touch processor that is operable in response to a plurality of touch icons and touch gestures associated with a graphical user interface (GUI), a processor and the tablet housing (Kim: par. [0063], [0070], [0073]-[0076, [0089] and [0093]).
Regarding claim 50, Cheung discloses an endoscopic Fig. 5) that connects the LED light source (par. [0043] and [0063]) to a fiber optic device that optically couples the LED light source in the handle to a distal end of the endoscope body to illuminate a region of interest within an arthroscopic joint (par. [0043], [0039], [0040] and [0053]-[0054]), the camera being configured to operate to take at least one of images and video of a surgical at least one of tissue, a body channel and arthroscopic joints (capable of this intended use),
Although Cheung discloses the sheath having a distal window (16) to image the field of view, it does not specifically disclose the sheath having a distal optical element defining a field of view. Additionally, Cheung does not specifically disclose. Gill teaches an analogous endoscope system wherein the tubular sheath (204; Fig. 24B; par. [0151]) has a distal optical element (560/562/564/566; Fig. 24B; par. [0151]) defining a field of view. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the distal end optical assembly of Gill for that of Cheung, being a simple substitution of one known optical configuration for another, having predictable results.
Although Cheung discloses that the light source comprises a light emitting diode (LED) (par. [0041] and [0043] – illumination source), it does not specifically disclose that LED is white. Fowler teaches an analogous device wherein the light source includes a white light emitting diode that is useful due to its small package size, lifespan and color temperature (par. [0097]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a white LED in the device of Cheung thereby taking advantage of their small package size, lifespan and color temperature, as taught by Fowler.
However, modified Cheung does not specifically disclose that is display device is a tablet display device having a battery, a touchscreen display, a system controller, a video signal processor within the tablet display device, the tablet display device being configured to deliver power to the camera and the white LED light source, the white LED light source being configured to operate in response to at least one touch actuated control on the touchscreen display. Kim teaches a tablet controlled endoscopic system (Fig. 3), wherein the device is a tablet display device (130) having a battery (par. [0091]), a touchscreen display (152; par. [0063]), a system controller (par. [0089] – endoscope driving application), a video signal processor (par. [0073]-[0076]) within the tablet display device (130), wherein the touchscreen display (152) is configured to actuate electrical power to the camera (par. [0016], [0038] and [0091]) and the light source (par. [0016], [0038] and [0091]), in response to at least one touch actuated signal (166; par. [0070]), the light source being configured to operate in response to at least one touch actuated control (166; par. [0070] on the touchscreen display (par. [0070]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the display device of modified Cheung a battery powered tablet display device connected to the endoscope, as taught by Kim, thereby allowing the operating room personnel to view images captured by the endoscope and control endoscopic operations in real time, as taught by Kim.
Cheung does not specifically disclose wherein a touch actuated camera control unit within the tablet display device controls operation of a camera, the tablet display device being configured to perform patient data entry parameters on the touchscreen display, the camera including an image sensor in single chip package, or that the camera having an image sensor array withing a single chip package that is clocked to transmit raw image signals to the touch actuated camera control unit with a cable connected to the connector device. Medler teaches a tablet controlled endoscopic system (Figs. 8 and 16), comprising a tablet display device (409; par. [0120]; Fig. 16) wherein a touch actuated camera control unit (par. [0131]- software application providing a graphical user interface to provide input) within the tablet display device (409) controls operation of a camera including having an image sensor package (par. [0111] – CMOS image sensor) for imaging of a surgical procedure (endoscopy). Medler teaches the tablet display device being configured to perform patient data entry parameters on the touchscreen display (par. [0042] – entering new patient profile on the tablet). Medler also teaches the endoscope having a connector device (portion of endoscope that connects to 70; Fig. 3; par. [0052]; see also par. [0121] – composite video output or RCA jack) that transmits raw image signals (par. [0123]) to the tablet display device (36/409; par. [0123]; Figs. 3, 6 and 16) with a cable (80; Figs. 3 and 6). Medler teaches that the image processing functions are then performed upon the raw image at the tablet display device (par. [0123]). Medler further teaches that either the endoscope can transmit the raw image data to the tablet display device for image processing by the tablet display device (par. [0123]) or that the endoscope can process the raw image data and transmit it to the tablet display device (par. [0124]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the touch actuated camera control unit in the tablet display of modified Cheung, in order to allow the operator to control the imaging components of the device, as taught by Medler. Furthermore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a single chip package CMOS image sensor because Applicant has not disclosed that the single chip package CMOS image sensor provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In the specification, as originally filed, “a single chip CMOS” is only mentioned in paragraph [0134] of the published application. In this paragraph, Applicant explicitly states that sensors such as a single chip CMOS or a three chip CMOS can be used (see par. [0134] of the published application). Applicant explicitly discloses that either a single chip or multi-chip CMOS image sensor is compatible with the system. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected modified Cheung’s system, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the CMOS sensor taught by modified Cheung or the claimed single chip package because both sensors would perform the same function of imaging a body cavity, and Applicant has disclosed that either a single chip CMOS senor or a multi-chip CMOS sensor can be used with the sensor. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Cheung to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of modified Cheung. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to communicate raw image data to the tablet display device for processing in the tablet display device as a substitution of one known method of image data transmission and processing for another, as taught by Medler, having the predictable result of displaying processed image data. As discussed above, Medler teaches use of both methods in the alternative.
Regarding claim 53, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler disclose the system of claim 50, further comprising user control elements (Medler: 50; Fig. 2; par. [0040]-[0041] and [0108]) that can be operated by a hand of the user to control camera operation and wherein the touchscreen display can be actuated to control camera operation (Medler: par. [0131]), and optionally controlling the white balance operation with the user control elements (Medler: (par. [0131]).
Regarding claim 54, Cheung in view of Gill view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler disclose the system of claim 50, wherein the white light (LED) (par. [0043] – illumination source) is actuated using the touchscreen display (Kim: 166; par. [0070]) or manually operated control elements.
Regarding claim 55, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler disclose the system of claim 53, wherein the user control elements actuate the white balance operation (Medler: par. [0040]-[0041], [0108] and [0131]).
Regarding claim 56, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler disclose the system of claim 53, wherein the user control elements comprise buttons on the handle (Medler: 50; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 57, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler disclose the system of claim 50, but does not specifically disclose wherein the tubular endoscope device comprises a flexible tube for insertion into body cavities. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the endoscope device comprise a flexible tube because Applicant has not disclosed that the flexible tube provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In the specification, Applicant explicitly discloses that either a rigid or flexible tube can be used (see par. [0072] and [0073] of the published application). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected modified Cheung’s system, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the tubular endoscope device taught by modified Cheung or the claimed tubular endoscope device because both sensors would perform the same function of imaging a body cavity. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Cheung to obtain the invention as specified in claim 57 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of modified Cheung.
Regarding claim 58, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler disclose the system of claim 50, but does not specifically disclose wherein the cable is 11 feet in length. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the cable 11 feet in length because Applicant has not disclosed that an 11 foot cable provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Further, Applicant explicitly discloses that the system may comprise a cable or it can be wireless. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected modified Cheung’s system, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the cable taught by modified Cheung or the claimed eleven foot cable because both cables would perform the same function of transferring data. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Cheung to obtain the invention as specified in claim 58 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of modified Cheung.
Regarding claim 59, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler disclose the system of claim 50 wherein the single chip package processes the image sensor signals for transmission of the raw image data to the tablet display device (Medler: par. [0123]-[0124]).
Regarding claim 60, Cheung in view of Gill view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler disclose the system of claim 50 wherein the touchscreen display is configured with a graphic user interface having a plurality of touch actuated icons to operate the camera parameters (Medler: 409; Fig. 16, par. [0120] and par. [0131]- software application providing a graphical user interface to provide input).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung in view of Gill in view of Kucklick in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler in view of Navok , as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Bala et al. (US 6478730 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Kucklick in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler in view of Navok disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the tubular endoscope device comprises a flexible tube (Gill: par. [0150]), but does not specifically disclose the flexible tube being insertable within the cannula having a curved shape. Bala teaches an analogous tubular endoscope device (144) and cannula (146) that are both flexible and wherein the cannula (146) is formed with a material having shape memory such that the user can bend the structure to have a particular angular shape for viewing of sites within a body at different angles (col. 9, ll. 24-36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the cannula of Cheung from a material having shape memory such that the user can bend the structure to have a particular angular shape for viewing sites within a body at different angles, as taught by Bala.
Claims 47 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung in view of Gill in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler, as applied to claim 43 above, in further view of Zwaneburg (US 2006/0290710 A1).
Regarding claim 47, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Kucklick in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler disclose the system of claim 43, wherein a light source controller (Medler: par. [0131]) is configured to control lighting variables (Medler: par. [0131]). However, modified Cheung does not specifically disclose wherein the light source controller is configured to control dimming of the white LED light source. Zwaneburg teaches a touchscreen display device (130/134; par. [0019]) having a graphical user interface (133/500; Fig. 5) including a light source controller (530/535; par. [0032]) to control dimming of the LED (par. [0032] and [0034]; Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have allowed the operator to also control the intensity of the light sources with the tablet, as taught by Zwangeburg, in order to allow the operator to also remotely control the intensity of the white LEDs of modified Cheung (par. [0043]) thereby providing a light source controller that can control even more parameters of lighting.
Regarding claim 49, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Kucklick in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler in view of Zwaneburg disclose the system of claim 47 wherein the light source controller (Medler: par. [0131]) controls [[a]] the white LED light source (Fowler: par. [0097]) mounted in the tablet display device (interpreted as handle, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above).
Claims 51 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung in view of Gill in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler, as applied to claim 43 above, in further view of Kucklick et al. (US 2005/0234298 A1).
Regarding claim 51, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler disclose the system of claim 50, further comprising a first cannula (50; Fig. 2; par. [0047]) that receives the tubular endoscope device in a first cannula channel (interior of cannula). Although Cheung discloses the endoscope (36) and tubular sheath (10/12) being inserted into a channel of the cannula (50; Fig. 2; par. [0047]) for minimally invasive surgery, it does not specifically disclose a second cannula channel extends through a second cannula that receives a surgical tool. Kucklick teaches an analogous endoscope system wherein an endoscope (2) and an arthroscopic tool (par. [0048]; Fig. 11) are inserted into a cannula (3; Figs. 11 and 12) having a working channel (56; first cannula channel) for the arthroscopic tool and a lumen (second cannula channel) for the endoscope (2; Fig. 12). Additionally, Kucklick teaches that when the cannula (3) is manufactured for use with arthroscopic instruments in smaller joints, it has an outer diameter measuring about 2-5mm (par. [0041] and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cannula of Cheung with that of Kucklick, including a working channel for an arthroscopic tool, and to provide the arthroscopic tool, in order reduce the number of incisions made during surgery, thereby minimizing the invasiveness of surgery, by allowing the surgeon to view the surgical site and perform a procedure through one cannula and incision.
Regarding claim 52, Cheung in view of Gill in view of Fowler in view of Kim in view of Medler disclose the system of claim 50, further comprising a cannula (50; Fig. 2; par. [0047]) having a first cannula (interior of cannula) channel. Although Cheung discloses the endoscope (36) and tubular sheath (10/12) being inserted into a channel of the cannula (50; Fig. 2; par. [0047]) for minimally invasive surgery, it does not specifically disclose surgery, by allowing the surgeon to view the surgical site and perform a procedure through one cannula and incision.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Medler references, Applicant contends that Medler does not disclose an imaging sensor in a single chip package that delivers raw image data (see Remarks at pages 8-9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Medler teaches a CMOS imaging sensor that delivers raw image data (par. [0123] and [0124]). Additionally, and as discussed above, Applicant explicitly states that sensors such as a single chip CMOS or a three chip CMOS can be used (see par. [0134] of the published application). Thus, it would have been obvious to use a single chip CMOS as Applicant explicitly discloses that either a single chip or multi-chip CMOS image sensor is compatible with the system. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the Kim reference, first Applicant continues to contend that Kim (US 2016/0331213) is not prior art (see Remarks at page 9). Next, Applicant continues to contend that due to the size of the endoscope of Kim, it cannot be used for arthroscopic procedures, and that Kim relies upon the controller located in the endoscope body to perform camera control functions (see Remarks at pages 9-10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Kim’s qualification as prior art, the Examiner has previously cited and provided a machine translation of KR 2013-0131129A, published as KR 10-2015-0049930, which has a filing date of 10/31/2013, and to which Kim claims foreign priority. As is clear from the publication and machine translation, the subject matter of Kim relied upon in the rejection is fully supported. Accordingly, Kim is prior art to the claimed invention.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about the size of the endoscope of Kim, the Examiner notes that it is the display device of Cheung is modified by the tablet display device of Kim, and not the endoscope of Cheung. Thus, contrary to that contended by Applicant, the size of the endoscope of Cheung is not modified by Kim. Applicant further contends that Kim relies upon the controller located in the endoscope body to perform camera control functions (see Remark at page 9). The Examiner asserts that Kim is not cited for teaching a tablet that performs camera control functions. As discussed in the rejection above, Kim teaches a tablet display device that delivers power to the endoscope and the white LED light source. Thus, contrary to that contended by Applicant, Kim is not cited for teaching a tablet display device that performs camera control functions. Accordingly, the argument is misplaced and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the Zwaneburg reference, Applicant continues to argue that Zwaneburg does not include a light source controller because there is an LED controller 112 housed at 110 with the LED lamp 115 (see Remarks at page 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Zwaneburg teaches a touchscreen display device (130/134; par. [0019]) having a graphical user interface (133/500; Fig. 5) including a light source controller (530/535; par. [0032]) to control dimming of the LED (par. [0032] and [0034]; Fig. 5). Zwaneburg teaches that the graphical user interface (133/500; Fig. 5) on the touchscreen display (130/134; par. [0019]) device has an intensity scale (530; par. [0032]) that allows adjusting a dimming level using a slider bar (535; par. [0032]). This dimming level signal is sent to the LED for commanded dimming. Thus, it is clear that the light source controller in the tablet display device of Zwaneburg is a light source controller, as claimed. Should Applicant have a narrower view of the light source controller and how it operates, the claims should be amended to reflect such.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYNAE E BOLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3620. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/RYNAE E BOLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
7/12/26
Prosecution Insights