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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication of 1/21/2026. Currently claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 13, 16-17 and 21 are pending and rejected below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 9-11, 13, 16-17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller (US 4,567,882) (or alternatively Panasonic Corp (JP 2013-198644)), in view of Oka (US 2019/0313891 A1 or PCT JP2017/000162) in further view of DOIRON (WO 93/25155)
Heller discloses a medical tube position confirmation system for confirming the position of a medical tube that is used to supply nutrients to the interior of a body by means of tube feeding while an end portion thereof is inserted into (placed in) the stomach, the system comprising: a light guide (15) that is configured to guide light entering through an incident end portion so that the light exits through an exit end portion, and is configured to be insertable into the medical tube so that the exit end portion is disposed in the interior of the stomach; and a light source (18) for emitting light including a wavelength passing through a living body, the light source being optically connected to the incident end of the light guide so that the light enters the light guide; and a scattering part (17’ and 117) optically connected to the light guide on the exit end portion of the light guide so as to scatter light emitted by the light guide (see figures generally 1-12). [Or for Panasonic reference see light guide body (4), Light source (7), Scattering part (12).]
Heller discloses the claimed invention except for the resin in which predetermined scattering materials are dispersed. Oka teaches that it is known to use resin in which predetermined scattering materials are dispersed as set forth in abstract, paragraphs [0047], [0053-0054], [0066], [0095] for example to provide greater diffusion properties for more uniform illumination light to enter the diffusion element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Heller with the resin in which predetermined scattering materials are dispersed as taught by Oka, since such a modification would provide the system with the resin in which predetermined scattering materials are dispersed for providing greater diffusion properties for more uniform illumination light to enter the diffusion element.
Heller in view of Oka discloses the claimed invention except for the scattering part has a cylindrical shape. Doiron teaches that it is known to use the scattering part has a cylindrical shape (note structures 14/16 or 94 forms a cylinder diffuser tip (as in figures 1,, 5-7 and 9-13 for some examples, further see pages 19-20 and discussing the cylindrical formation of the scattering material to provide a known means to direct and guide light to direct it to a particular location. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Heller in view of Oka with the scattering part has a cylindrical shape as taught by Doiron, since such a modification would provide the system with the scattering part has a cylindrical shape for providing a known means to direct and guide light to direct it to a particular location. Further A change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Examiner is of the position that a PHOSITA knows to construct light directing prisms in various shapes particularly cylindrical.
Concerning the amendments to the claims and the scattering part is composed of a resin containing a predetermined scattering material (note prism of 17’ and 117). Examiner is of the position that the prior art discloses that the distal scattering light part of the device may be made of Light transmitting plastic (e.g. polymethyl methacrylate). See disclosure of paragraphs at column 4 line 62 through column 5 line 25 Note discussion and figures that the elements 115 and 117 are formed of the same material. 115 element is formed from polymethyl methacrylate (which is a synthetic resin). Examiner is of the position that polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) is also known as acrylic, acrylic glass, as well as by the trade names and brands Crylux, Hesalite, Plexiglas, Acrylite, Lucite, and Perspex, among several others. Examiner is also of the position that polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) is a synthetic resin produced from the polymerization of methyl methacrylate. Examiner is of the position that this synthetic resin would satisfy and teach the material of the claim of a “resin” since the applicant has not provided a special definition of the term “resin” and examiner is of the broadest reasonable definition of the term to include PMMA as a resin material.
Examiner is of the position that forming the scattering part of 117 from this material would anticipated the claims by being a part composed of “resin”.
Furher note paragraphs of column 4 line 62 that state:
(13) The fiberoptic light conductor 115 may be composed of a single fiber (as shown) or a bundle of such fibers, all as previously described. A single fiber of clear, light-transmitting plastic (e.g., polymethyl methacrylate)
(14) been found particularly effective since no resolution or image-transmission is involved; however, other materials such as glass, or multiple fiber bundles, may also be used. Referring to FIGS. 10 and 12, it will be observed that the fiberoptic light conductor 115 has its distal end terminating in an end face 117 which serves as the emitter for directing light laterally from the tip portion of tube 110. The distal end of the conductor is totally embedded within the plastic wall 114 of the tube and, therefore, the smooth flexible plastic material protects a user against direct contact with the end of the fiberoptic light conductor. Since wall 114 is formed of transparent material, light emitted from end face 117 may pass outwardly from tip 111 notwithstanding the fact that the distal end portion of the conductor is completely embedded.
Concerning claim 3 and the predetermined scattering material scatters light with a higher degree of scattering for a shorter wavelength (it is examiners position that the prism of 17’ would scatter in this way as the light would disperse in ratio to the wavelength of light provided).
Concerning claim 4, and 12-13 and the scattering part has longer dimensions in a direction parallel with a direction of an optical axis of the light guide than in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the optical axis (it is examiners position that the prism 17’ in longer in this dimension as described as in figures 5 for one example).
Concerning the scattering part has a reflecting surface for reflecting light emitted by the light guide (note reflecting function of the prism 17’).
Concerning the scattering part has a substantially conical shape with the protruded portion at an apex thereof and the reflecting surface on a side surface thereof (again see figure 5 and 17’).
Concerning claim 9 and 15-17 and wherein the light source is set to emit light at an intensity that equals or exceeds a first intensity required for light to pass from the interior of the stomach to the exterior of the body but is lower than a second intensity required for light to pass from the interior of the lungs and trachea to the exterior of the body (examiner is of position that the light guide and source (18) would create these intensities as disclosure of element 18).
Concerning claim 10 and further comprising an imaging unit for capturing an image of the living body based at least on the light that exits through the exit end portion of the light guide and passes through the living body (see Panasonic imaging unit 19).
Concerning claim 11 and further comprising an image data storage unit for storing image data generated when the imaging unit captures an image of the living body (see Panasonic data storage unit 23).
Concerning claim 21 see Doiron teaches that it is known to use the scattering part has a cylindrical shape (note structures 14/16 or 94 forms a cylinder diffuser tip (as in figures 1,, 5-7 and 9-13 for some examples, further see pages 19-20 and discussing the cylindrical formation of the scattering material to provide a known means to direct and guide light to direct it to a particular location. Note Cylinders tips (as in figures 1, 5-7 and 9-13 for some examples).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner is of the position that the amended claim language is known.
As discussed above, Doiron teaches that it is known to use the scattering part has a cylindrical shape as set forth (in figures 1, 5-7 and 9-13 for some examples) to provide a known means to direct and guide light to direct it to a particular location. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Heller in view of Oka with the scattering part has a cylindrical shape as taught by Doiron, since such a modification would provide the system with the scattering part has a cylindrical shape for providing a known means to direct and guide light to direct it to a particular location. Further A change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Examiner is of the position that a PHOSITA knows to construct light directing prisms in various shapes particularly cylindrical.
In response to applicant's argument that one would not scatter light if Heller directs the light, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Further examiner is of the position that the scattering of light would be one known use for the device as shown in Heller figure 4.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The elements disclosed in the prior art and rejection above are fully capable of satisfying all structural, functional, spatial, and operational limitations in the amended claims, as currently written, and the rejection is made. It is recommended that applicant amend the claims to greater distinguish over the prior art of record and any obvious modifications thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP A GRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST (FLEX).
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 Tsai can be reached on (571)270-5246. 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.
/PHILLIP A GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783