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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated March 20, 2026.
Claims 1-5 and 9-13 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7 claims “the light input port”. The term “a light input port” has been removed from the preamble to Claim 1 in the March 30, 2026 amendment, and thus “the light input port” in line 7 has no antecedent basis. Appropriate correction by Applicant is required.
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 present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunoda et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0171155 – “Tsunoda”) in view of Birnkrant (US PGPUB 2017/0343203 – “Birnkrant”), Yamashita et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0128740 – “Yamashita”), and Yarush et al. (US Patent 6,554,765 – “Yarush”).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsunoda discloses:
A flexible electronic light guide (Tsunoda FIG. 1, scope portion 23 of pharyngoscope 1) comprising:
a housing (Tsunoda FIG. 7, portion 231 of scope portion 23) supporting a light emitting diode (Tsunoda FIG. 7, LED 45 within illumination unit 4), wherein the light emitting diode is positioned behind a lens (Tsunoda FIG. 7, lens 43) and a window (Tsunoda FIG. 7, illumination window 232) is positioned in front of the lens within the housing, and wherein the housing is positioned within a body (Tsunoda FIG. 2, showing scope portion 23 being inserted into a subject patient).
Paragraph [0064] of Tsunoda discloses that “electric power is supplied to…illumination unit 4”.
However, Tsunoda does not explicitly disclose that this electric power is supplied to a power cable coupled to the light emitting diode, or a solid heat sink positioned adjacent to and behind the light emitting diode and attached to a flexible tube and extending about the power cable to shunt heat away from the light emitting diode.
Birnkrant teaches electric power is supplied to a power cable (Birnkrant FIG. 5, conductor 410 of power supply wire 208) coupled to the light emitting diode (Birnkrant FIG. 5, LED 204), and a solid heat sink (Birnkrant FIG. 5, heat sink body 402) positioned adjacent to and behind the light emitting diode (Birnkrant FIG. 5, showing heat sink body 402 adjacent to and behind LED 204) and is attached to a flexible tube (Birnkrant FIG. 5, showing heat sink body 402 attached to elongated shaft 101 shown in Birnkrant FIG. 1; see also Birnkrant col. 5, line 49 – col. 6, line 23). Birnkrant further teaches that the solid heat sink is extending about the power cable (Birnkrant FIG. 5, conductor 410 of power supply wire 208) to shunt heat away from the light emitting diode (Birnkrant FIG. 5, LED 204).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Birnkrant’s power cable and heat sink with the light guide disclosed by Tsunoda. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a light guide in which “elongated heat sink bodies may thus provide a power connection to the LED while simultaneously providing a good thermal conduction path to conduct heat away from the LED…Thus the heat sink makes very efficient use of the limited space within the optical scope distal end” (see Birnkrant paragraph [0009]).
Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant does not explicitly teach:
a flexible heat sink directly connected to and surrounding an outside surface of the solid heat sink.
Yamashita teaches:
a solid heat sink (Yamashita FIG. 8, electrodes 32a/b; Yamashita paragraph [0047], “heat can be released in the longitudinal direction via the electrode members”) positioned adjacent to and behind the light emitting diode (Yamashita FIG. 8, LED 36), and
a flexible heat sink (Yamashita FIG. 8, mesh-like heat sink member 44) directly connected to and surrounding an outside surface of the solid heat sink (Yamashita FIG. 8, electrodes 32a/b attached to LED 36; Yamashita paragraph [0047], “heat can be released in the longitudinal direction via the electrode members”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yamashita’s two-part heat sink (electrodes 32a/b and mesh-like heat sink member) with the light guide taught by Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a heat being drawn away from the distal end of an insertion portion (see paragraph [0051] of Yamashita).
Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant and Yamashita does not explicitly teach a fitting positioned inside a forward end of the body for selectively coupling and decoupling the electronic light guide to the light input port of the endoscope.
Yarush teaches a fitting (Yarush FIG. 34, spring/ridge 699) positioned inside a forward end of the body (Yarush FIG. 34, socket 684) for selectively coupling and decoupling the electronic light guide (Yarush FIG. 35, light 666) to the light input port (Yarush FIG. 34, fiber light input port 670) of the endoscope (Yarush FIG. 35, camera 650 having a lens tube 668).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yarush’s fitting with the light guide taught by Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant and Yamashita. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an optical system having a lens system that may be readily replaced and substituted with another lens system such as a lens system having a flexible tip (see Yarush col. 35, lines 29-48).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunoda et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0171155 – “Tsunoda”) in view of Birnkrant (US PGPUB 2017/0343203 – “Birnkrant”), Yamashita et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0128740 – “Yamashita”), Yarush et al. (US Patent 6,554,765 – “Yarush”), and Onoda et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0149702 – “Onoda”).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, and Yarush teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, and Yarush does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible tube comprises a solid metal tube that is perforated according to a predetermined pattern that allows the solid metal tube to be flexible.
Onoda teaches wherein the flexible tube comprises a solid metal tube that is perforated according to a predetermined pattern (Onoda, FIG. 1, holding cable 31 inside universal cable 23; Onoda, FIGs. 2-3, showing perforations in inner fitting portion 35 used to construct holding cable 31) that allows the solid metal tube to be flexible (Onoda, paragraph [0033] “the universal cable 23 can be…flexible”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Onoda’s flexible tube with perforations for the flexible tube taught by Birnkrant in the light guide taught by Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, and Yarush. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution in order to provide a light source tube that is both flexible as well as semi-rigid (Onoda, paragraph [0033] “the universal cable 23 can be switched between a flexible state and a state where an arbitrary posture is fixed and held, and is configured by including a holding cable 31”) depending on the current need of the user.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunoda et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0171155 – “Tsunoda”) in view of Birnkrant (US PGPUB 2017/0343203 – “Birnkrant”), Yamashita et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0128740 – “Yamashita”), Yarush et al. (US Patent 6,554,765 – “Yarush”), and Hoshino (US PGPUB 2012/0271108 – “Hoshino”).
Regarding Claim 3, Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, and Yarush teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, and Yarush does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible tube comprises a braided wire jacket.
Hoshino teaches wherein the flexible tube comprises a braided wire jacket (Hoshino, FIG. 1, mesh-tube 102; Hoshino, paragraph [0007] “Flexible tube portions of…universal cables…have flexibility. As shown in FIG. 1…a universal cable are mainly composed of a laminated tube member (hereinafter, referred to as a corrugated tube) 100 configured by laminating a cover 101, a mesh-tube 102, and a helical tube 103.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hoshino’s braided mesh-tube jacket with Birnkrant’s flexible tube in the light guide taught by Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, and Yarush. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide additional strength to a power supply tube while retaining its flexibility.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunoda et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0171155 – “Tsunoda”) in view of Birnkrant (US PGPUB 2017/0343203 – “Birnkrant”), Yamashita et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0128740 – “Yamashita”), Yarush et al. (US Patent 6,554,765 – “Yarush”), Hoshino (US PGPUB 2012/0271108 – “Hoshino”), and Yang et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0262922 – “Yang”).
Regarding Claim 4, Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, Yarush, and Hoshino teaches the features of Claim 3, as described above.
Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, Yarush, and Hoshino does not explicitly teach wherein the braided wire jacket encloses a plurality of metal balls that are in contact with each other.
Yang teaches a jacket with a plurality of metal balls that are in contact with each other (Yang, FIG. 5, metals balls 633 arranged between outer pipe 631 and thin metal net 632).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yang’s metal balls with Hoshino’s braided mesh jacket in the system taught by Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, Yarush, and Hoshino. Although Yang’s metal balls are used to conduct heat to a liquid filled in the conductor pipe, a person having ordinary skill in the art would realize that such metal balls would conduct heat to a non-liquid, including air or even a vacuum, within a tube. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination of Yang’s metal balls with Hoshino’s braided mesh jacket in order to increase the amount heat conductivity in the braided mesh jacket that surrounds the power cable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunoda et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0171155 – “Tsunoda”) in view of Birnkrant (US PGPUB 2017/0343203 – “Birnkrant”), Yamashita et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0128740 – “Yamashita”), Yarush et al. (US Patent 6,554,765 – “Yarush”), Hoshino (US PGPUB 2012/0271108 – “Hoshino”), and Kulstad et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0006336 – Kulstad”).
Regarding Claim 5, Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, Yarush, and Hoshino teaches the features of Claim 3, as described above.
Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, Yarush, and Hoshino does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible tube comprises a plurality of metals.
Kulstad teaches a plurality of metals used for heat conduction (Kulstad, FIG. 1, heat transfer medium 106; Kulstad, paragraph [0133] “heat transfer medium 106 may comprise…a wire or ribbon. Such a wire or ribbon may…comprise any metal or combination of metals, including those that are routinely used such as iron-chromium-aluminum wires, nichrome wires, and copper-nickel wires”, emphasis added). That is, Kulstad explicitly teaches the known combination of different metals that are routinely used for thermal conduction.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the multiple types of metals used for heat conduction by Kulstad with the flexible tube taught by Birnkrant/Hoshino in the system taught by Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, Yarush, and Hoshino. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize multiple types of metals during construction of the flexible tube in order to provide a combination of metals that are well-known for conducting heat from a heat producing source, such as an LED.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunoda et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0171155 – “Tsunoda”) in view of Birnkrant (US PGPUB 2017/0343203 – “Birnkrant”), Yamashita et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0128740 – “Yamashita”), Yarush et al. (US Patent 6,554,765 – “Yarush”), and Banik et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0075538 – “Banik”).
Regarding Claim 9, Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, and Yarush teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, and Yarush does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible tube comprises a hollow tube coupled to a fluid reservoir.
Banik teaches wherein the flexible tube comprises a hollow tube (Banik, FIG. 3D, cooling tube 162; Banik, paragraph [0075] “water is pumped into a tube 162 that delivers the water to a heat exchanger coupled to the LED illumination source”) coupled to a fluid reservoir (Banik, FIG. 3C, water reservoir 150; Banik, paragraph [0074] “water reservoir 150 connected to the pump 145 supplies water to cool the illumination LEDs”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Banik’s hollow tube connected to a fluid reservoir with the flexible tube taught by Birnkrant in the system taught by Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, and Yarush. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide an endoscopic system with a cooled light source “to prevent the illuminations sources from becoming too hot in the patient’s body” (see paragraph [0075] of Banik).
Regarding Claim 10, Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, Yarush, and Banik teaches the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Banik further teaches wherein the hollow tube includes at least one valve configured to only allow a flow of fluid in one predetermined direction (Banik, paragraph [0075] “The water is pumped into a tube 162 that delivers the water to a heat exchanger coupled to the LED illumination source. Water returning from the heat exchanger is received in a tube 164 and passed through a flow meter 166 back to the reservoir 150.”; Banik, paragraph [0077] “Pinch valves are placed over the passages and are selectively opened or closed to control the delivery of fluids, air or vacuum to the different tubes”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Banik’s valve that ensures flow of fluids in a predetermined direction to a fluid reservoir with Birnkrant’s flexible tube in the system taught by Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, Yarush, and Banik. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to ensure that “water is continually pumped through the heat exchanger to prevent the illumination sources from becoming too hot in the patient's body” (see paragraph [0075] of Banik).
Regarding Claim 11, Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, and Yarush teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, and Yarush does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible tube comprises a linkage formed from a series of components held in contact with each other by a spring.
Banik teaches wherein the flexible tube comprises a linkage formed from a series of components (Banik, FIG. 23A, stacked rings 1002a, 1002b, 1002c, showing an additional embodiment of the invention shown in FIG. 3C and FIG. 6A of Banik) held in contact with each other by a spring (Banik, FIG. 23A, spring sections 1006).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Banik’s spring-tube linkage with Birnkrant’s flexible tube in the system taught by Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita and Yarush. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to ensure the tube is not only flexible, but also has the strength/support provided by Banik’s linkage.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunoda et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0171155 – “Tsunoda”) in view of Birnkrant (US PGPUB 2017/0343203 – “Birnkrant”), Yamashita et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0128740 – “Yamashita”), Yarush et al. (US Patent 6,554,765 – “Yarush”), and Yang et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0262922 – “Yang”).
Regarding Claim 12, Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, and Yarush teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, and Yarush does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible tube comprises a hollow tube packed with a plurality of metal balls.
Yang teaches wherein the flexible tube comprises a hollow tube packed with a plurality of metal balls (Yang, FIG. 5, pipe 63 with an interior metal net 632 holding metal balls 633; Yang, paragraph [0038] “the radiating device comprises…a heat-conductive component 62 and at least one super heat-conductive pipe 63…heat-conductive component 62 is in close contact with the back surface of the single polycrystalline LED chip module”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Birnkrant’s flexible tube with Yang’s flexible heat-conducting pipe filled with metal balls used to remove heat from an LED system in the system taught by Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, and Yarush. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize Yang’s pipe in order to enhance heat conduction away from the light at the end of Birnkrant’s flexible tube.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunoda et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0171155 – “Tsunoda”) in view of Birnkrant (US PGPUB 2017/0343203 – “Birnkrant”), Yamashita et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0128740 – “Yamashita”), Yarush et al. (US Patent 6,554,765 – “Yarush”), Yang et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0262922 – “Yang”), and Livingston (US PGPUB 2013/0048254 – “Livingston”).
Regarding Claim 13, Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, Yarush, and Yang teaches the features of Claim 12, as described above.
Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, Yarush, and Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of metal balls have a diameter between .0625 millimeters and 2.00 millimeters.
Livingston teaches wherein the plurality of a plurality of metal balls have a diameter between .0625 millimeters and 2.00 millimeters (Livingston, FIGs. 30-31, metallic ball micro particles 128 in slurry 99; Livingston, paragraph [0088] “in one embodiment the particles 99 are in the 100-400 micro millimeter size range” – Note that 100-400 micro millimeters is 0.1-0.4 millimeters).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the heat-conducting metallic balls having the dimensions taught by Livingston with the heat-conducting system taught by Yang in the light guide taught by Tsunoda in view of Birnkrant, Yamashita, Yarush, and Yang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide “a much enhanced heat transfer capability to the fluid” (see paragraph [0088] of Livingston), whether that fluid be liquid or air.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed March 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 in light of newly-claimed feature “a fitting positioned inside a forward end of the body for selectively coupling and decoupling the electronic light guide to the light input port of the endoscope” have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yarush et al. (US Patent 6,554,765 – “Yarush”), as described above in the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Specifically, Yarush teaches a fitting (Yarush FIG. 34, spring/ridge 699) positioned inside a forward end of the body (Yarush FIG. 34, socket 684) for selectively coupling and decoupling the electronic light guide (Yarush FIG. 35, light 666) to the light input port (Yarush FIG. 34, fiber light input port 670) of the endoscope (Yarush FIG. 35, camera 650 having a lens tube 668).
As such, the rejection of Claim 1, as well as dependent Claims 2-5 and 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
05/08/2026
Prosecution Insights