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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 6, 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on November 6, 2025. These drawings have not been entered. In Fig. 6B, it appears the location of the elements corresponding to reference characters 605 and 615 has been moved from the side of the blade (see the drawings filed on February 16, 2022) to the bottom of the blade. Furthermore, a circled portion adding detail has been added that was not present in the drawings filed on February 16, 2022. Accordingly, Fig. 6B appears to contain new matter.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenger et al. (US 2012/0330103 A1) in view of Mallory et al. (US 2016/0345803 A1) and Thommen et al. (US 2018/0214016 A1).
Claim 14. Tenger discloses a video laryngoscope, the system comprising:
a handle (handle 114) having a connector portion (portion of handle 114 attached to proximal connector portion 1823 of blade 1800 – see para. 0153) for receiving a larynx blade (distal blade portion 1820) at its distal end;
said larynx blade having an elongated blade portion (distal blade portion 1820) with an integrated camera (imaging/viewing device 1825) having a lens (see Fig. 52 inset); and
said handle containing a battery (power source 123 – see Fig. 2, which shows that handle 114 includes power source 123) (Figs. 51-53; paras. 0153-0154).
[AltContent: textbox (Lens)]
Claim 15. Tenger discloses wherein the distal end of the handle contains a blade connector (portion of handle 114 attached to proximal connector portion 1823 of blade 1800 – see para. 0153) for electromechanically, electrically, or mechanically connecting and engaging a variety of blade types for the laryngoscope (Figs. 51-53; paras. 0153-0154).
Claim 16. Tenger discloses wherein the blade types includes Macintosh, Miller, or curved and straight larynx blades (Figs. 51-53; paras. 0153-0154).
Claim 17. Tenger discloses wherein the blades contain the integrated camera and a light (white light 1830 and ultraviolet light 1835) at its distal end (Figs. 51-53; paras. 0153-0154).
Tenger fails to disclose wherein the camera has a lens wiper (claim 14), wherein the handle contains electronics for powering, operating, capturing, storing, and transmitting video and images from the integrated camera (claim 14), wherein the handle has a peripheral port that is fixed or adjustable at its proximal end for connecting to peripheral devices (claim 14), wherein the lens wiper is provided for removing condensation and debris from the lens (claim 18), and wherein the handle wirelessly transmits video and images from the integrated camera to a peripheral display and/or storage device (claim 20).
Mallory teaches a video laryngoscope comprising: a handle (handle 20) connected to a larynx blade (blade 30); the larynx blade having an elongated blade portion (blade 30) with an integrated camera (camera 80) having a lens (camera lens 82); the handle containing a battery (power source 102) and electronics for powering, operating, capturing, storing, and transmitting video and images from the integrated camera (see para. 0035, which states that handle 20 includes an electronics package; see para. 0040, which states that microprocessor 100 of the electronic package operates camera 80 and transmits to remote display 110; see also para. 0045); the handle having a peripheral port (suction port 40) that is fixed or adjustable (note that if a port is fixed, it is inherently not adjustable, and if a port is adjustable, it is inherently not fixed, and therefore port 40 must necessarily be either fixed or adjustable) at its proximal end for connecting to peripheral devices (see para. 0030, which states that suction port 40 connects to air source 150 to provide suction) and the blade being configured to cooperate with the peripheral devices (see para. 0030) to remove secretions during the procedure (see para. 0046); and the handle wirelessly transmitting video and images from the integrated camera to a peripheral display and/or storage device (see para. 0040, which states that microprocessor 100 of the electronic package operates camera 80 and transmits to remote display 110; see also para. 0045) (Figs. 1-8; paras. 0029-0046).
Thommen teaches that a camera (camera module 102) has a lens (lens 114) and a lens wiper (wiper 173), wherein the lens wiper is provided for removing condensation and debris from the lens (see para. 0202), wherein the lens wiper cleans the camera lens as desired (see para. 0202) (Figs. 30A-30B; para. 0202).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video laryngoscope of Tenger such that the camera has a lens wiper (claim 14) and the lens wiper is provided for removing condensation and debris from the lens (claim 18), as suggested by Thommen, in order to clean the camera lens as desired. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video laryngoscope of Tenger such that the handle contains electronics for powering, operating, capturing, storing, and transmitting video and images from the integrated camera (claim 14) and the handle wirelessly transmits video and images from the integrated camera to a peripheral display and/or storage device (claim 20), as suggested by Mallory, in order to provide means to operate the camera and allow other medical professionals to view the video and images as needed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video laryngoscope of Tenger such that the handle has a peripheral port that is fixed or adjustable at its proximal end for connecting to peripheral devices (claim 14), as suggested by Mallory, in order to remove secretions during the procedure.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenger et al. (US 2012/0330103 A1) in view of Mallory et al. (US 2016/0345803 A1).
Claim 21. Tenger discloses a video laryngoscope, the system comprising:
a handle (handle 114) having a connector portion (portion of handle 114 attached to proximal connector portion 1823 of blade 1800 – see para. 0153) for receiving a larynx blade (distal blade portion 1820) at its distal end;
said larynx blade having an elongated blade portion (distal blade portion 1820) with an integrated camera (imaging/viewing device 1825) and a light source (white light 1830 and ultraviolet light 1835); and
said handle containing a battery (power source 123 – see Fig. 2, which shows that handle 114 includes power source 123) (Figs. 51-53; paras. 0153-0154).
Tenger fails to disclose wherein the handle contains electronics for powering, operating, capturing, storing, and transmitting video and images from the integrated camera (claim 21) and wherein the handle has a peripheral port at its proximal end that is fixed or adjustable for connecting to peripheral devices (claim 21).
Mallory teaches a video laryngoscope comprising: a handle (handle 20) connected to a larynx blade (blade 30); the larynx blade having an elongated blade portion (blade 30) with an integrated camera (camera 80) having a lens (camera lens 82); the handle containing a battery (power source 102) and electronics for powering, operating, capturing, storing, and transmitting video and images from the integrated camera (see para. 0035, which states that handle 20 includes an electronics package; see para. 0040, which states that microprocessor 100 of the electronic package operates camera 80 and transmits to remote display 110; see also para. 0045); and the handle having a peripheral port (suction port 40) at its proximal end that is fixed or adjustable (note that if a port is fixed, it is inherently not adjustable, and if a port is adjustable, it is inherently not fixed, and therefore port 40 must necessarily be either fixed or adjustable) for connecting to peripheral devices (see para. 0030, which states that suction port 40 connects to air source 150 to provide suction) and the blade being configured to cooperate with the peripheral devices (see para. 0030) to remove secretions during the procedure (see para. 0046) (Figs. 1-8; paras. 0029-0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video laryngoscope of Tenger such that the handle contains electronics for powering, operating, capturing, storing, and transmitting video and images from the integrated camera (claim 21), as suggested by Mallory, in order to provide means to operate the camera and allow other medical professionals to view the video and images as needed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video laryngoscope of Tenger such that the handle has a peripheral port at its proximal end that is fixed or adjustable for connecting to peripheral devices (claim 21), as suggested by Mallory, in order to remove secretions during the procedure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the drawings, Applicant states that the circled portion as illustrated in the original drawings having dotted lines and that this is a zoomed in view supported by paras. 0030-0031 of the specification (see pg. 7). The Examiner disagrees. First of all, the original drawing of Fig. 6B as filed on February 16, 2022 does not have any section with dotted lines that may or may not represent a zoomed in view. Furthermore, the specification does not describe the structure shown in the drawings submitted on November 6, 2025 with respect to camera sensor 605 and lens wiper 615. In addition, Applicant has not addressed the relocation of camera sensor 605 and lens wiper 615 from the side of the blade (see Fig. 6B as field on February 16, 2022) to the bottom of the blade. Accordingly, Fig. 6B contains new matter.
With regard to the components that Tenger and Mallory fail to teach (see pgs. 9-10 of Applicant’s remarks), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regard to Thommen, Applicant argues that Thommen teaches an endoscope, not a laryngoscope and one would not use an endoscope in place of a laryngoscope (see pg. 10). The Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. It appears that Applicant is alleging that Thommen is nonanalogous art. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, an endoscope with a camera is analogous to a laryngoscope with a camera in that both devices are concerned with providing means to view the interior of a patient’s body. Thus, it is reasonable to apply the teachings of Thommen (means to provide a clear field of view for the camera through the lens via the use of a lens wiper) to a laryngoscope with a camera and lens as taught by Tenger.
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (see pg. 11), 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).
With regard to Applicant’s argument that neither Tenger nor Thommen teach a larynx blade having an elongated blade portion with an integrated camera having a lens and a lens wiper (see pgs. 11-12), it is noted that such a limitation is taught by combining the teachings of Thommen with Tenger. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANNA N HARVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at (571)272-4719. 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.
/JULIANNA N HARVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773