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/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 2, Claims 33, 35-39 and 46-47 in the response of 10 November, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 34, 40-45 and 48-52 are withdrawn, and claims 33, 35-39 and 46-47 are examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 33, 39 and 47 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 33, the claim does not provide indentation where new items are provided. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). See MPEP 6.08.01 (m). Specifically, there should be a new indented line after “comprising” on line 2.
In claim 39, the claim reads “the rest of the of the elongated shaft” [line 2] where it is clear this was instead intended to read “the rest of the elongated shaft”.
In claim 47, the claim reads “is or comprises discrete light source” where it is clear this was instead intended to read ““is or comprises a discrete light source”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In regards to claim 38, the claim reads “the shaft body distal section is detachable”. Here, the applicant has not set forth what the shaft body distal section is detachable from- hence it could be any object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 33, 35, 37-39 and 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0172670) in view of Avron et al. (US PGUB 2014/0364694).
In regards to claim 33, Levy discloses an elongated shaft [302, Fig.3, para.49; this is as elongated is relative terminology, and 302 is elongated compared to other hypothetical objects] detachably mountable on a reusable handle [this is not positively claimed, and the component 307, Fig.3, could be part of a handle] of a multi-camera endoscope, the elongated shaft comprising:
a shaft body [302, Fig.3, para.49], the shaft body comprising at a shaft body distal section [distal part of 302, Figs.3-4] at least two cameras [304, 338, Fig.3, para.50, 56] and at least one illumination component [328, Fig.3, para.50], and, at a shaft body proximal section, an adaptor [308, Fig.3, para.51];
wherein the adaptor is configured to mechanically and electronically detachably couple the imaging component to a coupling interface on a distal section of the handle [Figs.3-4, para.51-52], such as to mount the elongated shaft on the handle; and
wherein the adaptor is further configured to dictate a preferred coupling orientation [Figs.3-4, via the combined coupling of 308 with 312 and 316 with 324], such that the at least two cameras provide a combined and predetermined horizontal field-of-view (FOV) of a target area within an anatomical cavity, when the elongated shaft is mounted to the handle,
However, Levy does not positively disclose the combined and predetermined horizontal FOV is of at least 270 degrees.
Avron teaches an endoscope distal end component [162, Fig.1J, para.487] having three cameras [164, 169, 185, Fig.1J, para.487-488] and at least one illumination component [176, 183, 189, Fig.1J, para.480, 490], providing a combined and predetermined horizontal field-of-view (FOV) of at least about 270 degrees of a target area within an anatomical cavity [Fig.1J, para.498].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the at least two cameras taught by Levy to be three cameras with the field of view taught by Avron. This would be done for the predictable benefit of a large field of view.
In regards to claim 35, Levy in view of Avron teaches the elongated shaft of claim 33, wherein the at least two cameras comprise a front camera [Avron: 181, Fig.1j, Levy: 304, Figs.3-4] on a distal tip of the shaft and a first side-camera [Avron: 168, Fig.1j, Levy: 338, Figs.3-4].
In regards to claim 37, Levy in view of Avron teaches the elongated shaft of claim 33, wherein the elongated shaft is disposable [Levy: para.30, 49; and as anything may be disposed of].
In regards to claim 38, Levy in view of Avron teaches the elongated shaft of claim 33, wherein the shaft body distal section is detachable [See the claim interpretation section hereinabove: the object this is detachable from is not indicated, hence could be any object. Hence, an object could be envisioned such that the shaft body distal section is detachable from it. Alternatively, see Levy: Figs.3-4: where the distal part of 302 is detachable from 307 via mechanisms at the proximal part of 302.].
In regards to claim 39, Levy in view of Avron teaches the elongated shaft of claim 38, wherein the shaft body distal section is reusable [“reuse” here is not specifically indicated: this could be reused in another context, for example in a non-medical visualization] and the rest of the elongated shaft is disposable [As anything may be disposed of].
In regards to claim 46, Levy in view of Avron teaches the elongated shaft of claim 33, wherein the shaft body is rigid [Levy: Figs.3-4: at least holding shape sufficiently for connection. Also as all objects have the property of rigidity.].
In regards to claim 47, Levy in view of Avron teaches the elongated shaft of claim 33, wherein each of the at least one illumination component is or comprises discrete light source [Levy: 328, para.50].
Claims 33, 35-39 and 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0172670) in view of Levin et al. (US 2016/0015258).
In regards to claim 33, Levy discloses an elongated shaft [302, Fig.3, para.49; this is as elongated is relative terminology, and 302 is elongated compared to other hypothetical objects] detachably mountable on a reusable handle [this is not positively claimed, and the component 307, Fig.3, could be part of a handle] of a multi-camera endoscope, the elongated shaft comprising:
a shaft body [302, Fig.3, para.49], the shaft body comprising at a shaft body distal section [distal part of 302, Figs.3-4] at least two cameras [304, 338, Fig.3, para.50, 56] and at least one illumination component [328, Fig.3, para.50], and, at a shaft body proximal section, an adaptor [308, Fig.3, para.51];
wherein the adaptor is configured to mechanically and electronically detachably couple the imaging component to a coupling interface on a distal section of the handle [Figs.3-4, para.51-52], such as to mount the elongated shaft on the handle; and
wherein the adaptor is further configured to dictate a preferred coupling orientation [Figs.3-4, via the combined coupling of 308 with 312 and 316 with 324], such that the at least two cameras provide a combined and predetermined horizontal field-of-view (FOV) of a target area within an anatomical cavity, when the elongated shaft is mounted to the handle,
However, Levy does not positively disclose the combined and predetermined horizontal FOV is of at least 270 degrees.
Levin teaches an endoscope distal end component [600b, Fig.6b, para.187] having four cameras [601, 602a-b, 603, Fig.6b, para.164, 187] and at least one illumination component [608, 618a-b, 628, Fig.6b, para.168, 188], providing a combined and predetermined horizontal field-of-view (FOV) of at least about 270 degrees of a target area within an anatomical cavity [Fig.6b, para.195: as the cameras are aligned horizontally].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the at least two cameras taught by Levy to include four cameras with the field of view taught by Levin. This would be done for the predictable benefit of a large field of view.
In regards to claim 35, Levy in view of Levin teaches the elongated shaft of claim 33, wherein the at least two cameras comprise a front camera [Levin: 601, Fig.6b, Levy: 304, Figs.3-4] on a distal tip of the shaft and a first side-camera [Levin: 603, Fig.6b, Levy: 338, Figs.3-4].
In regards to claim 36, Levy in view of Levin teaches the elongated shaft of claim 35, wherein the at least two cameras further comprise a second side-camera [Levin: 602b, Fig.6b, para.188], wherein the first side-camera and the second side-camera are positioned on opposite sides of the shaft [Fig.6b], and wherein the first side-camera is positioned distally relative to the second side-camera [Fig.6b].
In regards to claim 37, Levy in view of Levin teaches the elongated shaft of claim 33, wherein the elongated shaft is disposable [Levy: para.30, 49; and as anything may be disposed of].
In regards to claim 38, Levy in view of Levin teaches the elongated shaft of claim 33, wherein the shaft body distal section is detachable [See the claim interpretation section hereinabove: the object this is detachable from is not indicated, hence could be any object. Hence, an object could be envisioned such that the shaft body distal section is detachable from it. Alternatively, see Levy: Figs.3-4: where the distal part of 302 is detachable from 307 via mechanisms at the proximal part of 302.].
In regards to claim 39, Levy in view of Levin teaches the elongated shaft of claim 38, wherein the shaft body distal section is reusable [“reuse” here is not specifically indicated: this could be reused in another context, for example in a non-medical visualization] and the rest of the elongated shaft is disposable [As anything may be disposed of].
In regards to claim 46, Levy in view of Levin teaches the elongated shaft of claim 33, wherein the shaft body is rigid [Levy: Figs.3-4: at least holding shape sufficiently for connection. Also as all objects have the property of rigidity.].
In regards to claim 47, Levy in view of Levin teaches the elongated shaft of claim 33, wherein each of the at least one illumination component is or comprises discrete light source [Levy: 328, para.50].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Levy (US 2019/0216300)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON B FAIRCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-5276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5pm Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Carey can be reached on (571) 270-7235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AARON B FAIRCHILD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795