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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to claims 1 and 8 in the response filed on 06/27/2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application
Claims 1-18 are examined.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims. The applicant has modified claims 1 and 8 to require wherein the first illumination light is narrow-band light, the second illumination light is white light, and the light distribution angle of the first illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens with respect to the optical axis of the observation window is narrower than the light distribution angle of the second illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens, limitations heretofore not presented for examination in this application. As such, the scope of the claims was substantially changed and new grounds for rejection are presented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 10-14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0103312 to Furuta in view of U.S. Publication No. 2009/0131931 to Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0218508 to Lee et al (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of U.S. Publication 2017/0290498 to Tamura et al. (hereinafter “Tamura”).
Regarding claim 1, Furuta discloses an endoscope comprising:
an imaging unit that is incorporated in a distal tip of an insertion tube and images an observed site through an observation window (S, Fig. 1A, [0025]);
a first light output unit that is disposed around the observation window (Fig. 1A) and includes a single, annular light distribution lens (3, Fig. 1A, [0026]) that is disposed around the observation window (Fig. 1A) and a first light emitting element facing the single, annular light distribution lens (1, Fig. 1A, [0026]) and positioned to emit first illumination light to pass through the single, annular light distribution lens ([0025]), which transmits the first illumination light only in a first range of directions to illuminate the observed site (Fig. 1A);
and a second light output unit that is disposed around the observation window includes the single, annular light distribution lens (3, Fig. 1A, [0026]) and a second light emitting element facing the single, annular light distribution lens (1, Fig. 1A, [0026]) and positioned to emit second illumination light to pass through the single, annular light distribution lens ([0025]), which transmits the second illumination light only in a second range of directions (Fig. 1A).
Furuta fails to expressly teach transmitting the second illumination light only in a second range of directions different from the first range of directions of the first illumination light to illuminate the observed site, wherein the first illumination light is narrow-band light, the second illumination light is white light, and the light distribution angle of the first illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens with respect to the optical axis of the observation window is narrower than the light distribution angle of the second illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens.
However, Lee teaches of an analogous device (Lee: 10, Fig. 1, [0040]) including includes a single, annular light distribution lens (39, Fig. 8, [0051]) that is disposed around the observation window (92, Fig. 8, [0052]) and a first light emitting element (fiber optic cables in [0051]) facing the single, annular light distribution lens (Fig. 8) and positioned to emit first illumination light to pass through the single, annular light distribution lens (89, Fig. 10, [0051]), which transmits the first illumination light only in a first range of directions to illuminate the observed site ([0051]); and a second light output unit that is disposed around the observation window (92, Fig. 8, [0052]) includes the single, annular light distribution lens (39, Fig. 8, [0051]) and a second light emitting element (fiber optic cables in [0051]) facing the single, annular light distribution lens ([0051]) and positioned to emit second illumination light to pass through the single, annular light distribution lens (89, Fig. 10, [0051]), which transmits the second illumination light only in a second range of directions different from the first range of directions of the first illumination light to illuminate the observed site ([0050]-the examiner notes that the illumination openings 89 can be different sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta to include the illumination openings and light emitting elements of Lee around the observation window of Furuta. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of delivering light outside the tip ([0051] of Lee).
Lee, in view of Furuta, fails to expressly teach wherein the first illumination light is narrow-band light, the second illumination light is white light, and the light distribution angle of the first illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens with respect to the optical axis of the observation window is narrower than the light distribution angle of the second illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens.
However, Lee further teaches of an endoscope (Lee: 100, Fig. 1, [0034]) wherein the first illumination light is narrow-band light (Lee: 132, Fig. 1, [0025], [0048]), the second illumination light is white light (Lee: 133, Fig. 1, [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee, so that the first illumination light is narrow-band light and the second illumination light is white light, as taught by Lee. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of being used in the diagnosis of a patient by a doctor ([0051] of Lee).
Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee, fails to expressly teach the light distribution angle of the first illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens with respect to the optical axis of the observation window is narrower than the light distribution angle of the second illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens.
However, Tamura teaches of an endoscope (Tamura: [0087]) wherein the light distribution angle of the first illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens with respect to the optical axis of the observation window is narrower than the light distribution angle of the second illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens (Tamura: [0065]-[0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee, and Lee, to utilize a different light distribution angle, as taught by Tamura. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of illumination the subject ([0004] of Tamura).
Regarding claim 2, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura,teaches the endoscope according to claim 1, and Furuta further discloses further comprising: a plurality of the first light emitting elements juxtaposed outside the imaging unit lens (1, Fig. 1A, [0026]); a plurality of the second light emitting elements juxtaposed outside a region where the first light emitting elements are juxtaposed lens (1, Fig. 1A, [0026]), wherein the single, annular light distribution lens covers the region where the first light emitting elements are juxtaposed and a region where the second light emitting elements are juxtaposed (3, Fig. 1A, [0026]), wherein the first light output unit includes the first light emitting elements (1, Fig. 1A, [0026])and the single, annular light distribution lens (3, Fig. 1A, [0026]), and the second light output unit includes the second light emitting elements (1, Fig. 1A, [0026])and the single, annular light distribution lens(3, Fig. 1A, [0026]).
Regarding claim 3, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura,teaches the endoscope according to claim 1, and Furuta further discloses further comprising: a light guide fiber ([0027]) that has a plurality of exit ends juxtaposed outside the imaging unit ([0027])and an incident end configured to receive light emitted by the first light emitting element ([0027]); a plurality of the second light emitting elements(1, Fig. 1A, [0026]), wherein the plurality of second light emitting elements are juxtaposed outside a region where the exit ends are juxtaposed(1, Fig. 1A, [0026]), wherein the single, annular light distribution lens covers the region where the exit ends are juxtaposed and a region where the second light emitting elements are juxtaposed (Fig. 1A),
the first light output unit also includes the light guide fiber ([0027], the second light output unit includes the second light emitting elements (1, Fig. 1A, [0026]) and the single, annular light distribution lens (3, Fig. 1A, [0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, teaches the endoscope according to claim 1, and Furuta further discloses further comprising: a light guide fiber ([0027]) that has an exit end outside the imaging unit and an incident end receiving the first and second illumination light from the first and second light emitting elements ([0027]), respectively, wherein; the first light emitting element emits light to be incident on a central part of the incident end (1, Fig. 1A, [0026]), the second light emitting element emits light to be incident on the entire incident end (1, Fig. 1A, [0026]), the single, annular light distribution lens covers the exit end of the light guide fiber ([0027]), and the first light output unit also includes the light guide fiber ([0027]), and the second light output unit also includes the light guide fiber ([0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, teaches the endoscope according to any one of claims 1, and Furuta further discloses wherein the first illumination light is narrow-band light, and the second illumination light is white light ([0028]).
Regarding claim 9, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, teaches the endoscope device according to claim 8.
Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, fails to expressly teach wherein a captured image under illumination by the first light output unit or a captured image under illumination by the second light output unit are alternately acquired and displayed side by side.
However, Lee(508) teaches of an endoscope (Fig. 1) wherein a captured image under illumination by the first light output unit or a captured image under illumination by the second light output unit are alternately acquired and displayed side by side ([0029] of Lee(508)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, to utilize the display of Lee(508). It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of displaying the images ([0029] of Lee(508)).
Regarding claim 10, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, teaches the endoscope according to claim 1.
Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, fails to expressly teach wherein the second light emitting element is positioned farther from the imaging unit in a transverse direction of the insertion tube than the first light emitting element, thereby causing the second illumination light to be incident on the single, annular light distribution lens over a wider range of directions than the first illumination light so that the single, annular light distribution lens transmits the second illumination light over a wider range of directions than the first illumination light.
However, Lee further teaches wherein the second light emitting element (fiber optic cables in [0051], 89, Fig. 10, [0051]) is positioned farther from the imaging unit in a transverse direction of the insertion tube than the first light emitting element (fiber optic cables in [0051], 89, Fig. 10, [0051]) , thereby causing the second illumination light to be incident on the single, annular light distribution lens over a wider range of directions than the first illumination light so that the single, annular light distribution lens transmits the second illumination light over a wider range of directions than the first illumination light ([0050]-the examiner notes that the illumination openings 89 can be different sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view if Lee, to include the illumination openings and light emitting elements of Lee around the observation window of Furuta. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of delivering light outside the tip ([0051] of Lee).
Regarding claim 11, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, teaches the endoscope according to claim 1, and Furuta further discloses wherein the observation window is positioned at a forward end of the distal tip (S, Fig. 1A, [0025]), the single, annular light distribution lens has an inner end adjacent to an outer end of the observation window (3, Fig. 1A, [0026]), an outer end adjacent a housing of the insertion tube (3, Fig. 1A, [0026]), a bending portion positioned between the inner and outer ends of the single, annular light distribution lens (Fig. 1A).
Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, fails to expressly teach and the second light emitting element is positioned in a transverse direction of the insertion tube farther from the inner end of the single, annular light distribution lens than the first light emitting element, so that the first illumination light is incident on a spread portion of the single, annular light distribution lens, and the second illumination light is incident on the single, annular light distribution lens over a wider range of directions than the first illumination light from the spread portion to the bending portion of the single, annular light distribution lens, thereby emitting second illumination light to pass through the single, annular light distribution lens at positions farther from the observation window in the longitudinal direction than the first illumination light from the first light emitting element, so that the single, annular light distribution lens transmits the second illumination light over a wider range of directions than the first illumination light.
However, Lee further teaches wherein the second light emitting element (fiber optic cables in [0051], 89, Fig. 10, [0051]) is positioned in a transverse direction of the insertion tube farther from the inner end of the single, annular light distribution lens than the first light emitting element (fiber optic cables in [0051], 89, Fig. 10, [0051]), so that the first illumination light is incident on a spread portion of the single, annular light distribution lens ([0051]) and the second illumination light is incident on the single, annular light distribution lens over a wider range of directions than the first illumination light from the spread portion to the bending portion of the single, annular light distribution lens ([0051]), thereby emitting second illumination light to pass through the single, annular light distribution lens at positions farther from the observation window in the longitudinal direction than the first illumination light from the first light emitting element ([0050]-the examiner notes that the illumination openings 89 can be different sizes), so that the single, annular light distribution lens transmits the second illumination light over a wider range of directions than the first illumination light ([0050]-the examiner notes that the illumination openings 89 can be different sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, to include the illumination openings and light emitting elements of Lee around the observation window of Furuta. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of delivering light outside the tip ([0051] of Lee).
Regarding claim 12, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, teaches the endoscope according to claim 1, and Furuta further discloses wherein the single, annular light distribution lens has inner and outer ends (3, Fig. 1A, [0026]), and a concave portion between the inner and outer ends (3, Fig. 1A, [0026]), the inner end of the single, annular light distribution lens is adjacent to an outer end of the observation window(3, Fig. 1A, [0026]), the second light emitting element is positioned in a transverse direction of the insertion tube farther from the inner end of the single, annular light distribution lens than the first light emitting element(1, Fig. 1A, [0026]).
Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, fails to expressly teach the single, annular light distribution lens transmits the second illumination light from the second light emitting element over a wider light distribution range than the first illumination light from the first light emitting element by the combined action of the concave portion of the single, annular light distribution lens and the positioning of the second light emitting element in the transverse direction of the insertion tube farther from the inner end of the single, annular light distribution lens than the first light emitting element.
However, Lee further teaches the single, annular light distribution lens transmits the second illumination light from the second light emitting element over a wider light distribution range than the first illumination light from the first light emitting element by the combined action of the concave portion of the single, annular light distribution lens and the positioning of the second light emitting element in the transverse direction of the insertion tube farther from the inner end of the single, annular light distribution lens than the first light emitting element (fiber optic cables in [0051], 89, Fig. 10, [0050]-the examiner notes that the illumination openings 89 can be different sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee to include the illumination openings and light emitting elements of Lee around the observation window of Furuta. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of delivering light outside the tip ([0051] of Lee).
Regarding claim 13, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, teaches the endoscope according to Claim 1.
Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, fails to expressly teach wherein the single, annular light distribution lens transmits the first and second illumination light in different ranges of directions in response to different positionings of the first and second light emitting elements with respect to the imaging unit.
However, Lee further teaches wherein the single, annular light distribution lens (39, Fig. 8, [0051]) transmits the first and second illumination light in different ranges of directions in response to different positionings of the first and second light emitting elements with respect to the imaging unit (fiber optic cables in [0051], 89, Fig. 10, [0050]-the examiner notes that the illumination openings 89 can be different sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee to include the illumination openings and light emitting elements of Lee around the observation window of Furuta. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of delivering light outside the tip ([0051] of Lee).
Regarding claim 14, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, teaches the endoscope according to Claim 13.
Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, fails to expressly teach wherein the first light emitting element is closer to the imaging unit than the second light emitting element.
However, Lee further teaches wherein the first light emitting element is closer to the imaging unit than the second light emitting element (fiber optic cables in [0051], 89, Fig. 10, [0050]-the examiner notes that the illumination openings 89 can be different sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, to include the illumination openings and light emitting elements of Lee around the observation window of Furuta. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of delivering light outside the tip ([0051] of Lee).
Regarding claim 17, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, teaches the endoscope according to Claim 1.
Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, fails to expressly teach wherein the single, annular light distribution lens has a concave portion, the second light emitting element is closer to the imaging unit than the first light emitting element, and the single, annular light distribution lens transmits the first and second illumination light in different ranges of directions in response to the different positionings of the first and second light emitting elements with respect to the imaging unit and the providing of the concave portion for the single, annular light distribution lens, resulting in the first illumination light from the first light emitting element being incident on the concave portion of the single, annular light distribution lens, thereby causing the first illumination light to be transmitted by the single, annular light distribution lens only in the first range of directions, and the second illumination light from the second light emitting element being incident on a portion of the single, annular light distribution lens spaced from the concave portion thereof, thereby causing the second illumination light to be transmitted by the single, annular light distribution lens only in the second range of directions.
However, Lee further teaches wherein the single, annular light distribution lens has a concave portion (39, Fig. 8, [0051]), the second light emitting element is closer to the imaging unit than the first light emitting element (fiber optic cables in [0051], 89, Fig. 10, [0050]-the examiner notes that the illumination openings 89 can be different sizes), and the single, annular light distribution lens transmits the first and second illumination light in different ranges of directions in response to the different positionings of the first and second light emitting elements with respect to the imaging unit and the providing of the concave portion for the single, annular light distribution lens, resulting in the first illumination light from the first light emitting element being incident on the concave portion of the single, annular light distribution lens, thereby causing the first illumination light to be transmitted by the single, annular light distribution lens only in the first range of directions, and the second illumination light from the second light emitting element being incident on a portion of the single, annular light distribution lens spaced from the concave portion thereof, thereby causing the second illumination light to be transmitted by the single, annular light distribution lens only in the second range of directions (fiber optic cables in [0051], 89, Fig. 10, [0050]-the examiner notes that the illumination openings 89 can be different sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, to include the illumination openings and light emitting elements of Lee around the observation window of Furuta. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of delivering light outside the tip ([0051] of Lee).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2012/0083656 to Kuroda.
Regarding claim 5, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, teaches the endoscope according to any one of claims 1.
Furuta, in view of Lee fails to expressly teach wherein an angular range of the second illumination light from the second light output unit is equal to or larger than a viewing angle of the imaging unit.
However, Kuroda teaches of an endoscope (Kuroda: 12, Fig. 2, [0037]) wherein an angular range of the second illumination light from the second light output unit (Kuroda: 28, Fig. 1, [0051]) is equal to or larger than a viewing angle of the imaging unit (Kuroda: [0115]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, so that the angular range of the second illumination light is equal to a viewing angle of the imaging unit, as taught by Kuroda. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of ensuring that the energy required for illumination is proportional to the area of a partial spherical surface according to the angle of view ([0115] of Kuroda).
Claim(s) 6, 8, 915, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta in view of U.S. Publication No. 2009/0131931 to Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0218508 to Lee et al (hereinafter “Lee(508)”) in view of U.S. Publication 2017/0290498 to Tamura et al. (hereinafter “Tamura”) and further in view of JP2001258823A to Hamazaki et al. (hereinafter “Hamazaki”).
Regarding claim 6, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, teaches the endoscope according to claim 1.
Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, fails to expressly teach wherein the imaging unit has a viewing angle of 1800 or more.
However, Hamazaki teaches of an endoscope (Hamazaki: 1, Fig. 1, [0010]) wherein the imaging unit (Hamazaki: 21, Fig. 3, [0018]) has a viewing angle of 1800 or more (Hamazaki: [0021]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Tamura, to utilize an imaging unit that has a viewing angle of 1800, as taught by Hamazaki. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of performing wide-angle observation ([0021] of Hamazaki).
Regarding claim 8, Furuta discloses an endoscope device comprising: an endoscope (Fig. 1A) including an imaging unit that is incorporated in a distal tip of an insertion tube and images an observed site through an observation window (S, Fig. 1A, [0025]), a first light output unit that is disposed around the observation window (Fig. 1A) and includes a single, annular light distribution lens (3, Fig. 1A, [0026]) that is disposed around the observation window (Fig. 1A) and a first light emitting element (1, Fig. 1A, [0026]) facing the single, annular light distribution lens and positioned to emit first illumination light to pass through the single, annular light distributions lens (Fig. 1A), which transmits the first illumination light only in a first range of directions to illuminate the observed site (Fig. 1A), and a second light output unit that is disposed around the observation window includes the single, annular light distribution lens (3, Fig. 1A, [0026]) and a second light emitting element(1, Fig. 1A, [0026]) facing the single, annular light distribution lens and positioned to emit second illumination light to pass through the single, annular light distribution lens (Fig. 1A), which transmits the second illumination light only in a second range of directions (Fig. 1A).
Furuta fails to expressly teach transmitting the second illumination light only in a second range of directions different from the first range of directions of the first illumination light to illuminate the observed site; and an image processing unit that performs mask processing on a peripheral edge portion of a captured image of the imaging unit under illumination by the first light output unit or the second light output unit and outputs the processed image, wherein the first illumination light is narrow-band light, the second illumination light is white light, and the light distribution angle of the first illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens with respect to the optical axis of the observation window is narrower than the light distribution angle of the second illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens.
However, Lee teaches of an analogous device (Lee: 10, Fig. 1, [0040]) including a first light emitting element (fiber optic cables in [0051]) facing the single, annular light distribution lens (39, Fig. 8, [0051]) which transmits the first illumination light only in a first range of directions (89, Fig. 10, [0051])to illuminate the observed site (92, Fig. 8, [0052]) and a second light emitting element (fiber optic cables in [0051]) facing the single, annular light distribution lens which transmits the second illumination light only in a second range of directions different from the first range of directions of the first illumination light to illuminate the observed site ([0050]-the examiner notes that the illumination openings 87 can be different sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta to include the illumination openings and light emitting elements of Lee around the observation window of Furuta. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of delivering light outside the tip ([0051] of Lee).
Furuta, in view of Lee, fails to expressly teach an image processing unit that performs mask processing on a peripheral edge portion of a captured image of the imaging unit under illumination by the first light output unit or the second light output unit and outputs the processed image, wherein the first illumination light is narrow-band light, the second illumination light is white light, and the light distribution angle of the first illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens with respect to the optical axis of the observation window is narrower than the light distribution angle of the second illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens.
However, Hamazaki teaches of an endoscope (Hamazaki: 1, Fig. 1, [0010]) including an image processing unit (Hamazaki: 6, Fig. 1, [0010]) that performs mask processing on a peripheral edge portion of a captured image of the imaging unit under illumination by the first light output unit or the second light output unit and outputs the processed image (Hamazaki: [0054], [0077]- [0078]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee, to include an image processing unit, as taught by Hamazaki. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of narrowing the viewing angle ([0054] of Hamazaki).
Furuta, in view of Lee and Hamazaki, fails to expressly teach wherein the first illumination light is narrow-band light, the second illumination light is white light, and the light distribution angle of the first illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens with respect to the optical axis of the observation window is narrower than the light distribution angle of the second illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens.
However, Lee(508) further teaches of an endoscope (Lee(508): 100, Fig. 1, [0034]) wherein the first illumination light is narrow-band light (Lee(508): 132, Fig. 1, [0025], [0048]), the second illumination light is white light (Lee(508): 133, Fig. 1, [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee, and Hamazaki, so that the first illumination light is narrow-band light and the second illumination light is white light, as taught by Lee(508). It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of being used in the diagnosis of a patient by a doctor ([0051] of Lee(508)).
Furuta, in view of Lee, and Lee(508) and Hamazaki, fails to expressly teach wherein the light distribution angle of the first illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens with respect to the optical axis of the observation window is narrower than the light distribution angle of the second illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens.
However, Tamura teaches of an endoscope (Tamura: [0087]) wherein the light distribution angle of the first illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens with respect to the optical axis of the observation window is narrower than the light distribution angle of the second illumination light emitted from the light distribution lens (Tamura: [0065]-[0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee, and Lee(508) and Hamazaki, to utilize a different light distribution angle, as taught by Tamura. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of illumination the subject ([0004] of Tamura).
Regarding claim 9, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Hamazaki and Tamura, teaches the endoscope device according to claim 8.
Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Hamazaki and Tamura, fails to expressly teach wherein a captured image under illumination by the first light output unit or a captured image under illumination by the second light output unit are alternately acquired and displayed side by side.
However, Lee(508) teaches of an endoscope (Fig. 1) wherein a captured image under illumination by the first light output unit or a captured image under illumination by the second light output unit are alternately acquired and displayed side by side ([0029] of Lee(508)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Hamazaki and Tamura, to utilize the display of Lee(508). It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of displaying the images ([0029] of Lee(508)).
Regarding claim 15, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Hamazaki and Tamura, teaches the endoscope device according to Claim 8.
Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Hamazaki and Tamura, fails to expressly teach wherein the single, annular light distribution lens transmits the first and second illumination light in different ranges of directions in response to different positioning of the first and second light emitting elements with respect to the imaging unit.
However, Lee further teaches wherein the single, annular light distribution lens transmits the first and second illumination light in different ranges of directions in response to different positioning of the first and second light emitting elements with respect to the imaging unit (fiber optic cables in [0051], 89, Fig. 10, [0050]-the examiner notes that the illumination openings 89 can be different sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Hamazaki and Tamura, to include the illumination openings and light emitting elements of Lee around the observation window of Furuta. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of delivering light outside the tip ([0051] of Lee).
Regarding claim 16, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Hamazaki and Tamura, teaches the endoscope device according to Claim 15.
Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Hamazaki and Tamura, fails to expressly teach wherein the first light emitting element is closer to the imaging unit than the second light emitting element.
However, Lee further teaches wherein the first light emitting element is closer to the imaging unit than the second light emitting element (fiber optic cables in [0051], 89, Fig. 10, [0050]-the examiner notes that the illumination openings 89 can be different sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Hamazaki and Tamura, to include the illumination openings and light emitting elements of Lee around the observation window of Furuta. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of delivering light outside the tip ([0051] of Lee).
Regarding claim 18, Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Hamazaki and Tamura,, teaches the endoscope according to Claim 8.
Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Hamazaki and Tamura, fails to expressly teach wherein the single, annular light distribution lens has a concave portion, the second light emitting element is closer to the imaging unit than the first light emitting element, and the single, annular light distribution lens transmits the first and second illumination light in different ranges of directions in response to the different positionings of the first and second light emitting elements with respect to the imaging unit and the providing of the concave portion for the single, annular light distribution lens, resulting in the first illumination light from the first light emitting element being incident on the concave portion of the single, annular light distribution lens, thereby causing the first illumination light to be transmitted by the single, annular light distribution lens only in the first range of directions, and the second illumination light from the second light emitting element being incident on a portion of the single, annular light distribution lens spaced from the concave portion thereof, thereby causing the second illumination light to be transmitted by the single, annular light distribution lens only in the second range of directions.
However, Lee further teaches wherein the single, annular light distribution lens has a concave portion (39, Fig. 8, [0051]), the second light emitting element is closer to the imaging unit than the first light emitting element (fiber optic cables in [0051], 89, Fig. 10, [0050]-the examiner notes that the illumination openings 89 can be different sizes), and the single, annular light distribution lens transmits the first and second illumination light in different ranges of directions in response to the different positionings of the first and second light emitting elements with respect to the imaging unit and the providing of the concave portion for the single, annular light distribution lens, resulting in the first illumination light from the first light emitting element being incident on the concave portion of the single, annular light distribution lens, thereby causing the first illumination light to be transmitted by the single, annular light distribution lens only in the first range of directions, and the second illumination light from the second light emitting element being incident on a portion of the single, annular light distribution lens spaced from the concave portion thereof, thereby causing the second illumination light to be transmitted by the single, annular light distribution lens only in the second range of directions (fiber optic cables in [0051], 89, Fig. 10, [0050]-the examiner notes that the illumination openings 89 can be different sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Furuta, in view of Lee and Lee and Hamazaki and Tamura, to include the illumination openings and light emitting elements of Lee around the observation window of Furuta. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of delivering light outside the tip ([0051] of Lee).
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 CHRISTEN A. SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM, and Friday 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM.
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, Mike Carey can be reached at (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.
/C.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795