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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-3, 6 & 9-31 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-10 & 12-16 are rejected.
Claims 11 & 30-31 are objected to.
Claims 17-29 are withdrawn.
Claims 4-5 & 7-8 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-8, filed November 14, 2025, with respect to the objections to Claims 3 & 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to the claims.
The objections to Claims 3 & 6 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed November 14, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of Claims 6 & 31 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments the claims.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of Claims 6 & 31 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-13, filed November 14, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103 of Claims 1-3, 6, 9-10 & 12-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality:
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first wiping object” on Line 2. Examiner kindly requests removing “first” from this limitation to conform with Applicant’s previous amendments regarding “the wiping object”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-10 & 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasunaga et al. (hereinafter "Yasunaga") (JP 2010022758 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Yasunaga, as best understood, discloses a system (Fig. 1, an in-vivo cleaning system comprising 100 and 108; [0021] & [0022]) for cleaning an imaging device (Fig. 1, 100; [0021]) during a surgical procedure within a patient ([0010]), the system comprising:
the imaging device (Fig. 1, 100; [0021]) comprising a first lens (Fig. 3, a first 103; [0022]) or a first window (Fig. 3, a first 102a; [0026]), or a combination thereof, a second lens (Fig. 3, a second 103; [0022]) or a second window (Fig. 3, a second 102a; [0026]), or a combination thereof, a first axis of rotation (a rotating direction; [0022]), and a second axis of rotation (Fig. 1, a bending direction; [0039]); and
a wiping object (Fig. 1, 108; [0022]) positioned at an offset distance away from the imaging device (see Fig. 1) and configured to wipe at least a portion of the first lens or the first window or the second lens or the second window as the imaging device is rotated about the first axis of rotation ([0028]) into a contacting orientation between the wiping object and at least one of the first lens or the first window, or the combination thereof and the second lens or the second window, or the combination thereof (a rotational position in which 108 is contacting either the first 102a or the second 102a (i.e., disposed along line A-A in Fig 2)), from a non-contacting orientation between the wiping object and at least one of the first lens or the first window, or the combination thereof and the second lens or the second window, or the combination thereof (a rotational position in which 108 is not contacting either the first 102a or the second 102a (i.e., disposed along line B-B in Fig 2)).
Regarding Claim 2, Yasunaga discloses the system of Claim 1. Yasunaga further discloses wherein the imaging device comprises a camera or an endoscope (Fig. 1, 100 is an endoscope; [0021]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yasunaga discloses the system of Claim 1. Yasunaga further discloses wherein contacting the wiping object to the portion of the first lens or the first window and moving the first wiping object relative to the portion of the first lens or the first window removes a material from at least a portion of a surface of the first lens or the first window ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yasunaga discloses the system of Claim 1. Yasunaga further discloses wherein rotating the imaging device about the first axis of rotation relative to the wiping object comprises the wiping object being stationary ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 9, Yasunaga discloses the system of Claim 1. Yasunaga further discloses wherein the first lens is positioned behind the first window (see Fig. 3) and the second lens is positioned behind the second window (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Yasunaga discloses the system of Claim 1. Yasunaga further discloses wherein the wiping object is configured to contact at least a portion of the first window and at least a portion of the second window sequentially (Fig. 2, 108 rotates and therefore contacts the first 102a and the second 102a sequentially; [0028]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yasunaga discloses the system of Claim 1. Yasunaga further discloses wherein the wiping object comprises a pad, a sheet, or a wiper, or a combination thereof (Fig. 3, 108 is a wiper; [0022]).
Regarding Claim 13, Yasunaga discloses the system of Claim 1. Yasunaga further discloses wherein the wiping object is sized to have a length of at most about a dimension of the first lens or the first window to reduce drag across the surface of the first lens or the first window when the wiping object is moved relative to the first lens or the first window (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Yasunaga discloses the system of Claim 1. Yasunaga further discloses wherein the wiping object comprises a flexible material configured to mold to the surface of the first lens or the first window when the wiping object is in contact with the first lens or the first window ([0026]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasunaga et al. (hereinafter "Yasunaga") (JP 2010022758 A) in view of Mizote et al. (hereinafter "Mizote") (US 2011/0119857).
Regarding Claims 15-16, Yasunaga discloses the system of Claim 1. Yasunaga fails to explicitly disclose wherein the wiping object comprises a substantially non-porous surface; and wherein the wiping object comprises a fluoropolymer.
However, Mizote teaches a system for cleaning a window (Fig. 1, a cleaning assembly comprising 11 and 14; [0054]), the system comprising:
a window (Fig. 2, 14; [0054]);
a wiping object (Fig. 2, 11; [0055]; and
wherein the wiping object comprises wherein the wiping object is a fluoropolymer having a substantially non-porous surface (Fig. 2, 15 of 11 is made of fluorocarbon rubber FKM; [0056] & [0065]).
The advantage of fluorocarbon rubber FKM is to improve durability of the wiping object (Mizote; [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to use fluorocarbon rubber FKM, as taught by Mizote, for the wiping object as disclosed by Yasunaga, to improve durability of the wiping object (Mizote; [0065]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 & 30-31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 11, Yasunaga discloses the system of Claim 1. Yasunaga fails to explicitly disclose a second wiping object, wherein the wiping object is configured to contact at least a portion of the first window and the second wiping object is configured to contact at least a portion of the second window.
Regarding Claim 30, Yasunaga discloses the system of Claim 1.Yasunaga fails to explicitly disclose a main body, the imaging device rotatably mounted thereto and the wiping object mounted thereto.
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 STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
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 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.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795