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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 12, 2026 has been entered.
This Office action is responsive to an amendment filed December 23, 2025. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 12, 16-19, 21-27 & 29-32 are pending. New claims 30-32 have been added. Claims 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15, 20 & 28-29 have been canceled. Claims 1, 12, 16, 24-25 & 29 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-25, 30 & 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 24, at line 2, the limitations “the protrusions” render the claim indefinite; for example, from the limitations “one or more protrusions” at lines 8-9 of claim 1 from which the claim depends, it is unclear whether the claim requires one or more than one protrusions.
In regards to claim 25, at line 4, the limitations “the protrusion” render the claim indefinite; for example, from the limitations “one or more protrusions” at lines 8-9 of claim 1 from which the claim depends, it is unclear whether the claim requires one or more than one protrusions.
In regards to claim 30, at line 3, the limitations “the protrusions” and “the recesses” render the claim indefinite; for example, from the limitations “one or more protrusions” at lines 8-9 and/or “one or more recesses” at line 9 of claim 1 from which the claim depends, it is unclear whether the claim requires one or more than one protrusions and/or one or more recesses.
In regards to claim 32, the limitation “a protrusion” renders the claim indefinite; for example, from the limitations “one or more protrusions” at lines 8-9 of claim 1 from which the claim depends, it is unclear whether the newly recited protrusion is the same as, or one of the previously recited protrusions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 & 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kume (JP 2013248353).
In regards to claim 12, Kume discloses a method for providing anatomical distance measurements using a medical visualization device, the method comprising:
applying a light through a transparent cover (3, 4) on an elongated shaft 12 of the medical visualization device, the transparent cover (3, 4) having a reticle including one or more markings 52 positioned on or within the transparent cover (3, 4),
wherein the one or more markings 52 are within a field of view of an imaging component 30 and a light path from alighting component 31 extending through the elongated shaft 12,
wherein the transparent cover (3, 4) is directly attached to a distal end of the elongated shaft 12, such that the one or more markings 52 are spaced away by an offset from the distal end of the elongated shaft 12,
wherein the light applied through the transparent cover (3, 4) causes the one or more markings 52 to block at least a portion of the light and cast a shadow on a surface exterior of the transparent cover (3, 4);
capturing an image through the transparent cover (3, 4), the image including a view of the one or more markings 52 and at least a portion of the shadow; and
determining a measure of an anatomical distance in the image based on a spatial relationship between the view of the one or more markings 52 the portion of the shadow cast on the surface in the image, and the distal end of the elongated shaft 12 (see at least abstract, figs. 1-5, 7(a)-(b), 8(a)-(b), 10-11 & 13 and English translation).
In regards to claim 26, Kume discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the medical visualization device includes a head 1, wherein the transparent cover (3, 4) is coupled to a distal end of the head 1 and the transparent cover (3, 4) extends distally beyond the distal end of the elongated shaft 12 such that the markings 52 causing the shadow are distal to the elongated shaft 12 and the head 1 of the medical visualization device (see at least abstract, figs. 1-5, 7(a)-(b), 8(a)-(b), 10-11 & 13 and English translation).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 16-19, 21-22 & 24 is/are rejected as being unpatentable over Kume (JP 2013248353) in view of Ouchi (US 6,921,362).
In regards to claim 1, Kume discloses a visualization medical device, comprising:
an elongated shaft 12;
an imaging component 30 extending through the elongated shaft 12, the imaging component 30 (inherently) having a lens and is configured to capture an image of an area exterior of the elongated shaft 12 in a field of view of the lens;
a head 1,
wherein a transparent cover (3, 4) is attached directly coupled to a distal end of the elongated shaft 12, and the transparent cover (3, 4) extends distally beyond the distal end of the elongated shaft 12, wherein the transparent cover (3, 4) is positioned over the lens and within the field of view of the imaging component 30; and
a reticle comprising one or more markings 52 positioned on or within the transparent cover (3, 4), wherein the one or more markings 52 are configured to appear in the image captured by the imaging component 30 to provide a visual reference for gauging a size or distance of an object or surface in the field of view (see at least abstract, figs. 1-5, 7(a)-(b), 8(a)-(b), 10-11 & 13 and English translation).
Kume discloses a visualization medical device, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a visualization medical device wherein a distal facing surface of the shaft includes one or more recesses, and wherein a proximal facing surface of the transparent cover includes one or more protrusions configured to engage the one or more recesses to fixedly attach the transparent cover to the distal end of the elongated shaft.
However, Ouchi teaches that it is known to provide a visualization medical device 10 wherein a distal facing surface of the shaft 11 includes one or more recesses 17, and wherein a proximal facing surface of the transparent cover 22 includes one or more protrusions 28 configured to engage the one or more recesses 17 to fixedly attach the transparent cover 22 to the distal end of the elongated shaft 11 (see at least abstract, figs. 1-8 and col. 3, lines 66-67; col. 4, lines 1-26 & 60-67; col. 5, lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Kume wherein a distal facing surface of the shaft includes one or more recesses, and wherein a proximal facing surface of the transparent cover includes one or more protrusions configured to engage the one or more recesses to fixedly attach the transparent cover to the distal end of the elongated shaft as taught by Ouchi since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Ouchi) to a known device (i.e., as taught by ) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing a locking mechanism that facilitates engagement and disengagement of the cap to the distal end of the elongated shaft (see at least abstract of Ouchi)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 2, Kume discloses the visualization medical device of claim 1, further comprising:
a lighting component 31 extending through the elongated shaft 12, wherein the lighting component 31 is configured to light the area exterior of the distal end of the elongated shaft 12 (see at least abstract, figs. 1-5, 7(a)-(b), 8(a)-(b), 10-11 & 13 and English translation).
In regards to claim 4, Kume discloses the visualization medical device of claim 2, wherein the reticle is a fixed marking embedded in or formed on the transparent cover (3, 4) (see at least abstract, figs. 1-5, 7(a)-(b), 8(a)-(b), 10-11 & 13 and English translation).
In regards to claim 16, Kume discloses a visualization medical system, comprising:
an elongate tool 12 having a transparent cover (3, 4),
the transparent cover (3, 4) having one or more fixed markings 52 thereon;
an imaging component 30 configured to capture an image through the transparent cover (3, 4), the image including one or more identifiers representative of at least one of the one or more fixed markings 52 on the transparent cover (3, 4); and
a video processor 32 configured to analyze image data of the image that is received from the imaging component 30;
wherein the video processor 32 is configured to determine one or more measurements of an anatomical distance in the image based on a known spatial relationship between the one or more fixed markings 52 and the distal end of the elongate tool 12 an analysis of the image data (see at least abstract, figs. 1-5, 7(a)-(b), 8(a)-(b), 10-11 & 13 and English translation).
Kume discloses a visualization medical system, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a visualization medical system wherein a distal end of the elongate tool has one or more first mating components, and wherein a proximal facing surface of the transparent cover has one or more second mating components configured to engage the one or more first mating components to attach the transparent cover mate with the one or more first mating components to couple the transparent cover to the distal end of the elongate tool.
However, Ouchi teaches that it is known to provide a visualization medical system wherein a distal end of the elongate tool 11 has one or more first mating components 17, and wherein a proximal facing surface of the transparent cover 22 has one or more second mating components 28 configured to engage the one or more first mating components 17 to attach the transparent cover 22 mate with the one or more first mating components 17 to couple the transparent cover to the distal end of the elongate tool 11 (see at least abstract, figs. 1-8 and col. 3, lines 66-67; col. 4, lines 1-26 & 60-67; col. 5, lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Kume wherein a distal end of the elongate tool has one or more first mating components, and wherein a proximal facing surface of the transparent cover has one or more second mating components configured to engage the one or more first mating components to attach the transparent cover mate with the one or more first mating components to couple the transparent cover to the distal end of the elongate tool as taught by Ouchi since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Ouchi) to a known device (i.e., as taught by ) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing a locking mechanism that facilitates engagement and disengagement of the cap to the distal end of the elongated shaft (see at least abstract of Ouchi)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 17, Kume discloses the visualization medical system of claim 16, further comprising, a light source configured to apply light through the transparent cover (3, 4) and cause a shadow of the one or more markings 52 to appear in the image (see at least abstract, figs. 1-5, 7(a)-(b), 8(a)-(b), 10-11 & 13 and English translation).
In regards to claim 18, Kume discloses the visualization medical system of claim 17, wherein the video processor 32 is configured to determine the one or more measurements of the anatomical distance in the image based on the one or more markings 52 in the image and the shadow of the one or more markings 52 in the image (see at least abstract, figs. 1-5, 7(a)-(b), 8(a)-(b), 10-11 & 13 and English translation).
In regards to claim 19, Kume discloses the visualization medical system of claim 18, wherein the one or more measurements of the anatomical distance in the image include determining a distance between the one or more markings 52 on the transparent cover (3, 4) and a surface on which the shadow is located (see at least abstract, figs. 1-5, 7(a)-(b), 8(a)-(b), 10-11 & 13 and English translation)
In regards to claim 21, Kume discloses the visualization medical device of claim 2, wherein the one or more markings 52 are positioned within both the field of view of the imaging component 30 and a light path from the lighting component 31, and wherein the one or more markings 52 are configured to block light from the lighting component 31 and cause a shadow of the one or more markings 52 to be cast on the object or surface within the field of view (see at least abstract, figs. 1-5, 7(a)-(b), 8(a)-(b), 10-11 & 13 and English translation).
In regards to claim 22, Kume discloses the visualization medical device of claim 21, wherein the image includes both the one or more markings 52 and the shadow, and wherein a spatial relationship between the one or more markings 52 and the shadow is viewable by a user to gauge the distance of the object or surface in the field of view (see at least abstract, figs. 1-5, 7(a)-(b), 8(a)-(b), 10-11 & 13 and English translation).
In regards to claim 24, Kume discloses the visualization medical device of claim 1, that fails to explicitly teach a visualization medical device wherein the protrusions are spaced relative to one another on the proximal facing surface of the transparent cover. However, Ouchi teaches that it is known to provide a visualization medical device wherein the protrusions 28 are spaced relative to one another on the proximal facing surface of the transparent cover 22 (see at least abstract, figs. 1-8 and col. 3, lines 66-67; col. 4, lines 1-26 & 60-67; col. 5, lines 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Kume wherein the protrusions are spaced relative to one another on the proximal facing surface of the transparent cover as taught by Ouchi since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Ouchi) to a known device (i.e., as taught by ) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing a locking mechanism that facilitates engagement and disengagement of the cap to the distal end of the elongated shaft (see at least abstract of Ouchi)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (JP 2013248353) in view of Ouchi (US 6,921,362) further in view of Ikemoto (US 2019/0301855).
Kume as modified by Ouchi discloses the visualization medical device of claim 3, that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the reticle comprises one or more liquid crystal display (LCD) elements actuatable to cause the one or more markings to appear in the image.
However, Ikemoto teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein the reticle comprises one or more liquid crystal display (LCD) elements actuatable to cause the one or more markings to appear in the image (see at least figs. 1A-B and par 0036, 0049 & 0102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Kume as modified by Ouchi wherein the reticle comprises one or more liquid crystal display (LCD) elements actuatable to cause the one or more markings to appear in the image as taught by Ikemoto since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Ikemoto) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Kume) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as making it possible to vary the period of the projected pattern as desired in accordance with the size, distance, and so on of the object, which makes it possible to carry out more accurate distance measurement based on the conditions (see at least par 0102 of Ikemoto)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 12, 16-19, 21-22, 24, 26 & 30 is/are rejected as being unpatentable over Silverstein et al. (US 5,193,525) (“Silverstein” hereinafter) in view of Davidson et al. (US 2004/0127785) (“Davidson” hereinafter).
In regards to claim 1, Silverstein discloses a visualization medical device, comprising:
an elongated shaft 50;
an imaging component 54 extending through the elongated shaft 50, the imaging component 54 (inherently) having a (light collecting and/or focusing) lens and is configured to capture an image of an area exterior of the elongated shaft 50 in a field of view of the lens (light collecting and/or focusing) (see at least col. 8, lines 24-38);
a head 70,
wherein a transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover) is attached directly coupled to a distal end 72 of the elongated shaft 50, wherein a distal facing surface 80 of the shaft includes one or more recesses (102, 138), and wherein a proximal facing surface of the transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover) includes one or more protrusions (100, 134) configured to engage the one or more recesses (102, 138) to fixedly attach the transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover) to the distal end 72 of the elongated shaft 50, and the transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover) extends distally beyond the distal end 72 of the elongated shaft 50, wherein the transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover) is positioned over the lens and within the field of view of the imaging component 54 (see at least figs. 3, 8-9 & 15-16 and col. 8, lines 58-68, col. 9, lines 1-14 and col. 11, lines 21-50).
Silverstein discloses a visualization medical device, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a visualization medical device comprising a reticle comprising one or more markings positioned on or within the transparent cover, wherein the one or more markings are configured to appear in the image captured by the imaging component to provide a visual reference for gauging a size or distance of an object or surface in the field of view.
However, Davidson teaches that it is known to provide a visualization medical device 40 (such as an endoscope, see par 0014) comprising a reticle 56 comprising one or more markings 56 positioned on or within the transparent cover 50 (may be a dome or plane-shaped window, see par 0021), wherein the one or more markings 56 are configured to appear in the image captured by the imaging component to provide a visual reference for gauging a size or distance of an object or surface in the field of view (see at least abstract, figs. 1A-B, 2A-B & 3 and par 0022-0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Silverstein comprising a reticle comprising one or more markings positioned on or within the transparent cover, wherein the one or more markings are configured to appear in the image captured by the imaging component to provide a visual reference for gauging a size or distance of an object or surface in the field of view as taught by Davidson since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., the size and distance estimation technique of Davidson) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as enabling the estimation or determination of the size of objects seen in in-vivo images from within body lumens or cavities by providing an observer with a visual tool or guide aiding the observer in making such an estimation (see at least par 0006 of Davidson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 2, Silverstein discloses the visualization medical device of claim 1, further comprising:
a lighting component 52 extending through the elongated shaft 50, wherein the lighting component 52 is configured to light the area exterior of the distal end 72 of the elongated shaft 50 (see at least figs. 3, 8-9 & 15-16; col. 8, lines 24-38).
In regards to claim 4, Silverstein discloses the visualization medical device of claim 2, that fails to explicitly teach a visualization medical device wherein the reticle is a fixed marking embedded in or formed on the transparent cover. However, Davidson teaches that it is known to provide a visualization medical device 40 (such as an endoscope, see par 0014) wherein the reticle 56 is a fixed marking embedded in or formed on the transparent cover 50 (may be a dome or plane-shaped window, see par 0021) (see at least abstract, figs. 1A-B, 2A-B & 3 and par 0022-0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Silverstein wherein the reticle is a fixed marking embedded in or formed on the transparent cover as taught by Davidson since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., the size and distance estimation technique of Davidson) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as enabling the estimation or determination of the size of objects seen in in-vivo images from within body lumens or cavities by providing an observer with a visual tool or guide aiding the observer in making such an estimation (see at least par 0006 of Davidson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 12, Silverstein discloses a method for providing anatomical distance measurements using a medical visualization device, the method comprising:
applying a light (from light source 52) through a transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover) on an elongated shaft 50 of the medical visualization device (see at least col. 8, lines 24-38);
wherein the transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover) is directly attached to a distal end 72 of the elongated shaft 50 (see at least figs. 3, 8-9 & 15-16); and,
capturing an image through the transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover) (see at least figs. 3, 8-9 & 15-16).
Silverstein discloses a visualization medical device, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a visualization medical device with the transparent cover having a reticle including one or more markings positioned on or within the transparent cover, wherein the one or more markings are within a field of view of an imaging component and a light path from a lighting component extending through the elongated shaft, such that the one or more markings are spaced away by an offset from the distal end of the elongated shaft, wherein the light applied through the transparent cover causes the one or more markings to block at least a portion of the light and cast a shadow on a surface exterior of the transparent cover, the image including a view of the one or more markings and at least a portion of the shadow; and determining a measure of an anatomical distance in the image based on a spatial relationship between the view of the one or more markings the portion of the shadow cast on the surface in the image, and the distal end of the elongated shaft.
However, Davidson teaches that it is known to provide a visualization device (such as an endoscope, see par 0014) with the transparent cover 50 (may be a dome or plane-shaped window, see par 0021) having a reticle 56 including one or more markings positioned on or within the transparent cover 50 (may be a dome or plane-shaped window, see par 0021), wherein the one or more markings 56 are within a field of view of an imaging component and a light path from a lighting component extending through the elongated shaft (such as an endoscope, see par 0014), such that the one or more markings 56 are spaced away by an offset from the distal end of the elongated shaft (such as an endoscope, see par 0014), wherein the light applied through the transparent cover 50 causes the one or more markings 56 to block at least a portion of the light and cast a shadow on a surface exterior of the transparent cover 50 (may be a dome or plane-shaped window, see par 0021), the image including a view of the one or more markings 56 and at least a portion of the shadow; and determining a measure of an anatomical distance in the image based on a spatial relationship between the view of the one or more markings 56 the portion of the shadow cast on the surface in the image, and the distal end of the elongated shaft (such as an endoscope, see par 0014) (see at least abstract, figs. 1A-B, 2A-B & 3 and par 0022-0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Silverstein with the transparent cover having a reticle including one or more markings positioned on or within the transparent cover, wherein the one or more markings are within a field of view of an imaging component and a light path from a lighting component extending through the elongated shaft, such that the one or more markings are spaced away by an offset from the distal end of the elongated shaft, wherein the light applied through the transparent cover causes the one or more markings to block at least a portion of the light and cast a shadow on a surface exterior of the transparent cover, the image including a view of the one or more markings and at least a portion of the shadow; and determining a measure of an anatomical distance in the image based on a spatial relationship between the view of the one or more markings the portion of the shadow cast on the surface in the image, and the distal end of the elongated shaft as taught by Davidson since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., the size and distance estimation technique of Davidson) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as enabling the estimation or determination of the size of objects seen in in-vivo images from within body lumens or cavities by providing an observer with a visual tool or guide aiding the observer in making such an estimation (see at least par 0006 of Davidson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 16, Silverstein discloses a visualization medical system, comprising:
an elongate tool 50 having a transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover), wherein a distal end 72 of the elongate tool 50 has one or more first mating components (100, 134), and wherein a proximal facing surface of the transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover) has one or more second mating components (102, 138) configured to engage the one or more first mating components (100, 134) to attach the transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover) mate with the one or more first mating components (100, 134) to couple the transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover) to the distal end 72 of the elongate tool 50 (see at least figs. 3, 8-9 & 15-16 and col. 8, lines 58-68, col. 9, lines 1-14 and col. 11, lines 21-50); and,
an imaging component 54 configured to capture an image through the transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover) (see at least figs. 3, 8-9 & 15-16 and col. 8, lines 58-68, col. 9, lines 1-14 and col. 11, lines 21-50).
Silverstein discloses a visualization medical system, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a visualization medical system with the transparent cover having one or more fixed markings thereon; the image including one or more identifiers representative of at least one of the one or more fixed markings on the transparent cover; and a video processor configured to analyze image data of the image that is received from the imaging component; wherein the video processor is configured to determine one or more measurements of an anatomical distance in the image based on a known spatial relationship between the one or more fixed markings and the distal end of the elongate tool an analysis of the image data.
However, Davidson teaches that it is known to provide a visualization medical system with the transparent cover 50 (may be a dome or plane-shaped window, see par 0021) having one or more fixed markings 56 thereon; the image including one or more identifiers 56 representative of at least one of the one or more fixed markings 56 on the transparent cover; and a video processor 14 configured to analyze image data of the image that is received from the imaging component 47; wherein the video processor 14 is configured to determine one or more measurements of an anatomical distance in the image based on a known spatial relationship between the one or more fixed markings 56 and the distal end of the elongate tool (such as an endoscope, see par 0014) an analysis of the image data (see at least abstract, figs. 1A-B, 2A-B & 3 and par 0014 & 0022-0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Silverstein with the transparent cover having one or more fixed markings thereon; the image including one or more identifiers representative of at least one of the one or more fixed markings on the transparent cover; and a video processor configured to analyze image data of the image that is received from the imaging component; wherein the video processor is configured to determine one or more measurements of an anatomical distance in the image based on a known spatial relationship between the one or more fixed markings and the distal end of the elongate tool an analysis of the image data as taught by Davidson since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., the size and distance estimation technique of Davidson) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as enabling the estimation or determination of the size of objects seen in in-vivo images from within body lumens or cavities by providing an observer with a visual tool or guide aiding the observer in making such an estimation (see at least par 0006 of Davidson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 17, while Silverstein discloses the visualization medical system of claim 16, further comprising, a light source configured to apply light through the transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover) (see at least figs. 8-9 & 15-16), Silverstein discloses a visualization medical system further comprising, a light source configured to apply light through the transparent cover and cause a shadow of the one or more markings to appear in the image. However, Davidson teaches that it is known to provide a visualization medical device further comprising, a light source 42 configured to apply light through the transparent cover 50 and cause a shadow of the one or more markings 56 to appear in the image (see at least abstract, figs. 1A-B, 2A-B & 3 and par 0014 & 0022-0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Silverstein further comprising, a light source configured to apply light through the transparent cover and cause a shadow of the one or more markings to appear in the image as taught by Davidson since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., the size and distance estimation technique of Davidson) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as enabling the estimation or determination of the size of objects seen in in-vivo images from within body lumens or cavities by providing an observer with a visual tool or guide aiding the observer in making such an estimation (see at least par 0006 of Davidson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 18, Silverstein discloses the visualization medical system of claim 17, that fails to explicitly teach a visualization medical device wherein the video processor is configured to determine the one or more measurements of the anatomical distance in the image based on the one or more markings in the image and the shadow of the one or more markings in the image. However, Davidson teaches that it is known to provide a visualization medical system wherein the video processor 14 is configured to determine the one or more measurements of the anatomical distance in the image based on the one or more markings 56 in the image and the shadow of the one or more markings 56 in the image (see at least abstract, figs. 1A-B, 2A-B & 3 and par 0014 & 0022-0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Silverstein wherein the video processor is configured to determine the one or more measurements of the anatomical distance in the image based on the one or more markings in the image and the shadow of the one or more markings in the image as taught by Davidson since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., the size and distance estimation technique of Davidson) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as enabling the estimation or determination of the size of objects seen in in-vivo images from within body lumens or cavities by providing an observer with a visual tool or guide aiding the observer in making such an estimation (see at least par 0006 of Davidson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 19, Silverstein discloses the visualization medical system of claim 18, that fails to explicitly teach a visualization medical device wherein the one or more measurements of the anatomical distance in the image include determining a distance between the one or more markings on the transparent cover and a surface on which the shadow is located. However, Davidson teaches that it is known to provide a visualization medical device wherein the one or more measurements of the anatomical distance in the image include determining a distance between the one or more markings 56 on the transparent cover 50 (may be a dome or plane-shaped window, see par 0021) and a surface on which the shadow is located (see at least abstract, figs. 1A-B, 2A-B & 3 and par 0014 & 0022-0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Silverstein wherein the one or more measurements of the anatomical distance in the image include determining a distance between the one or more markings on the transparent cover and a surface on which the shadow is located as taught by Davidson since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., the size and distance estimation technique of Davidson) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as enabling the estimation or determination of the size of objects seen in in-vivo images from within body lumens or cavities by providing an observer with a visual tool or guide aiding the observer in making such an estimation (see at least par 0006 of Davidson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 21, Silverstein discloses the visualization medical device of claim 2, that fails to explicitly teach a visualization medical device wherein the one or more markings are positioned within both the field of view of the imaging component and a light path from the lighting component, and wherein the one or more markings are configured to block light from the lighting component and cause a shadow of the one or more markings to be cast on the object or surface within the field of view. However, Davidson teaches that it is known to provide a visualization medical device (such as an endoscope, see par 0014) wherein the one or more markings 56 are positioned within both the field of view of the imaging component 47 and a light path from the lighting component 42, and wherein the one or more markings 56 are configured to block light from the lighting component 42 and cause a shadow of the one or more markings 56 to be cast on the object or surface within the field of view (see at least abstract, figs. 1A-B, 2A-B & 3 and par 0014 & 0022-0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Silverstein wherein the one or more markings are positioned within both the field of view of the imaging component and a light path from the lighting component, and wherein the one or more markings are configured to block light from the lighting component and cause a shadow of the one or more markings to be cast on the object or surface within the field of view as taught by Davidson since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., the size and distance estimation technique of Davidson) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as enabling the estimation or determination of the size of objects seen in in-vivo images from within body lumens or cavities by providing an observer with a visual tool or guide aiding the observer in making such an estimation (see at least par 0006 of Davidson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 22, Silverstein discloses the visualization medical device of claim 21, that fails to explicitly teach a visualization medical device wherein the image includes both the one or more markings and the shadow, and wherein a spatial relationship between the one or more markings and the shadow is viewable by a user to gauge the distance of the object or surface in the field of view. However, Davidson teaches that it is known to provide a visualization medical device (such as an endoscope, see par 0014) wherein the image includes both the one or more markings 56 and the shadow, and wherein a spatial relationship between the one or more markings 56 and the shadow is viewable by a user to gauge the distance of the object or surface in the field of view (see at least abstract, figs. 1A-B, 2A-B & 3 and par 0014 & 0022-0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Silverstein wherein the image includes both the one or more markings and the shadow, and wherein a spatial relationship between the one or more markings and the shadow is viewable by a user to gauge the distance of the object or surface in the field of view as taught by Davidson since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., the size and distance estimation technique of Davidson) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as enabling the estimation or determination of the size of objects seen in in-vivo images from within body lumens or cavities by providing an observer with a visual tool or guide aiding the observer in making such an estimation (see at least par 0006 of Davidson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 24, while, in the embodiments of figs. 8-9 & 15-16, Silverstein discloses the visualization medical device wherein the male mating component is a protrusion (100, 134) of the transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover), and wherein the female mating component (102, 138) is a feature of the elongated shaft 50 configured to receive the male mating component (100, 134) (see at least figs. 8-9 & 15-16), Silverstein as modified by Davidson discloses the visualization medical device of claim 1, that fails to explicitly teach a visualization medical device in the embodiment of figs. 8-9 & 15-16 wherein the protrusions are spaced relative to one another on the proximal facing surface of the transparent cover. However, since Silverstein teaches that the visualization medical device of the embodiment of figs. 8-9 may include multiple projections 100 that are spaced relative to one another on the proximal facing surface of the cover 70 (see at least col. 9, lines 25-36), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Silverstein as modified by Davidson wherein the protrusions are spaced relative to one another on the proximal facing surface, as alternatively taught by Silverstein, of the transparent cover thereof in order to provide an opaque barrier that ensures light cannot travel through the lens material itself from the light source to the image viewer while securely attaching the cover to the distal end of the elongated shaft.
In regards to claim 26, while Silverstein discloses a method wherein the medical visualization device includes a head 70, wherein the transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover) is coupled to a distal end of the head 70 and the transparent cover (i.e., lenses or alternatively, a plastic transparent member functioning as a clear cover) extends distally beyond the distal end 72 of the elongated shaft 50 (see at least figs. 8-9 & 15-16), Silverstein discloses the method of claim 12, that fails to explicitly teach a visualization medical device wherein the transparent cover is coupled to a distal end of the head and the transparent cover extends distally beyond the distal end of the elongated shaft such that the markings causing the shadow are distal to the elongated shaft and the head of the medical visualization device. However, Davidson teaches that it is known to provide a visualization medical device (such as an endoscope, see par 0014) wherein the transparent cover 50 is coupled to a distal end of the head and the transparent cover 50 extends distally beyond the distal end of the elongated shaft (such as an endoscope, see par 0014) such that the markings 56 causing the shadow are distal to the elongated shaft and the head of the medical visualization device (see at least abstract, figs. 1A-B, 2A-B & 3 and par 0014 & 0022-0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Silverstein wherein the transparent cover, as taught by Davidson, is coupled to a distal end of the head thereof and the transparent cover extends distally beyond the distal end of the elongated shaft such that the markings causing the shadow, as taught by Davidson, are distal to the elongated shaft and the head of the medical visualization device thereof since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., the size and distance estimation technique of Davidson) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as enabling the estimation or determination of the size of objects seen in in-vivo images from within body lumens or cavities by providing an observer with a visual tool or guide aiding the observer in making such an estimation (see at least par 0006 of Davidson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 30, Silverstein discloses the visualization medical device of claim 1, wherein the proximal facing surface includes an annular seating surface configured to contact the distal facing surface 80 of the elongated shaft 50 when the protrusions are inserted into the recesses (see at least figs. 8-9 & 15-16 and col. 9, lines 25-36).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverstein (US 5,193,525) in view of Davidson (US 2004/0127785) further in view of Ikemoto (US 2019/0301855).
Silverstein as modified by Davidson discloses the visualization medical device of claim 3, that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the reticle comprises one or more liquid crystal display (LCD) elements actuatable to cause the one or more markings to appear in the image.
However, Ikemoto teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein the reticle comprises one or more liquid crystal display (LCD) elements actuatable to cause the one or more markings to appear in the image (see at least figs. 1A-B and par 0036, 0049 & 0102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Silverstein as modified by Davidson wherein the reticle comprises one or more liquid crystal display (LCD) elements actuatable to cause the one or more markings to appear in the image as taught by Ikemoto since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Ikemoto) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as making it possible to vary the period of the projected pattern as desired in accordance with the size, distance, and so on of the object, which makes it possible to carry out more accurate distance measurement based on the conditions (see at least par 0102 of Ikemoto)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Claim(s) 23 & 27 is/are rejected as being unpatentable over Silverstein (US 5,193,525) in view of Davidson (US 2004/0127785) further in view of Kawano et al. (US 2010/0032546).
In regards to claim 23, Silverstein as modified by Davidson discloses the visualization medical device of claim 2, that fails to explicitly teach a medical device wherein the transparent cover comprises a first portion overlaying the lighting component and a second portion overlaying the imaging component, wherein the first portion is a first color, and wherein the second portion is a second color different from the first color. However, Kawano teaches that it is known to provide a medical device wherein the transparent cover 6b comprises a first portion 7 overlaying the lighting component 8a-c and a second portion (i.e., transparent angle of view) overlaying the imaging component 9, wherein the first portion is a first color, and wherein the second portion is a second color different from the first color (see at least figs. 1, 3 & 8 and par 0056-0058, 0061, 0096-0100 & 0129). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Silverstein as modified by Davidson wherein the transparent cover comprises a first portion overlaying the lighting component and a second portion overlaying the imaging component, wherein the first portion is a first color, and wherein the second portion is a second color different from the first color as taught by as taught by Kawano since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Kawano) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as acquiring an in-vivo image with high color reproducibility capable of clearly depicting the state of a desired examination target (see at least par 0146 of Kawano)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 27, Silverstein as modified by Davidson discloses the method of claim 12, that fails to explicitly teach the method wherein the transparent cover comprises a first portion overlaying the lighting component and a second portion overlaying the imaging component, wherein the first portion is a first color, and wherein the second portion is a second color different from the first color. However, Kawano teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the transparent cover 6b comprises a first portion 7 overlaying the lighting component 8a-c and a second portion (transparent angle of view) overlaying the imaging component 9, wherein the first portion is a first color, and wherein the second portion is a second color different from the first color (see at least figs. 1, 3 & 8 and par 0056-0058, 0061, 0096-0100 & 0129). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Silverstein e as modified by Davidson (see at least figs. 1, 3 & 8 and par 0056-0058, 0061, 0096-0100 & 0129). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the visualization medical device of Silverstein as modified by Davidson wherein the transparent cover comprises a first portion overlaying the lighting component and a second portion overlaying the imaging component, wherein the first portion is a first color, and wherein the second portion is a second color different from the first color as taught by as taught by Kawano since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Kawano) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as acquiring an in-vivo image with high color reproducibility capable of clearly depicting the state of a desired examination target (see at least par 0146 of Kawano)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations). as taught by as taught by Kawano since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Kawano) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as acquiring an in-vivo image with high color reproducibility capable of clearly depicting the state of a desired examination target (see at least par 0146 of Kawano)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Claim(s) 25, 29 & 31-32 is/are rejected as being unpatentable over Silverstein (US 5,193,525) in view of Davidson (‘785) further in view of Marescaux et al. (US 2008/0269562) (“Marescaux” hereinafter).
In regards to claim 25, Silverstein as modified by Davidson discloses the visualization medical device of claim 8, that fails to explicitly teach a medical device wherein the transparent cover further comprises one or more gaps positioned to receive pincer arms and a protrusion defining an opening for receiving a stabilizer of the device, wherein the one or more gaps and protrusion are positioned on the proximal facing surface. However, Marescaux teaches that it is known to provide a medical device wherein the cover 13 further comprises one or more gaps positioned to receive pincer arms (14a-b, 25a-b) and a protrusion defining an opening 15b for receiving
PNG
media_image1.png
488
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a stabilizer of the device, wherein the one or more gaps and protrusion are positioned on the proximal facing surface (see at least abstract, figs. 1-2, 4-5, 10 and par 0057, 0059-0060 & 0071-0072). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the medical device of Silverstein as modified by Davidson wherein the transparent cover further comprises one or more gaps positioned to receive pincer arms and a protrusion defining an opening for receiving a stabilizer of the device, wherein the one or more gaps and protrusion are positioned on a front surface opposite the male mating components as taught by Marescaux since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Marescaux) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing a system for transgastric or transluminal endoscopic surgery with a thin profile so as to be easily insertable into a patient and is capable of creating an effective working triangle for the surgeon, allowing easy illumination and viewing of a surgical site, wherein fluid matter may be easily delivered to a surgical site (see at least par 0015-0019 of Marescaux)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 29, Silverstein as modified by Davidson discloses the visualization medical system of claim 28, that fails to explicitly teach a medical device wherein the transparent cover further comprises one or more gaps positioned to receive pincer arms and a protrusion defining an opening for receiving a stabilizer of the elongate tool, wherein the gaps and the protrusion are positioned on a front surface of the transparent cover. However, Marescaux teaches that it is known to provide a medical device wherein the cover 13 further comprises one or more gaps positioned to receive pincer arms (14a-b, 25a-b)
PNG
media_image1.png
488
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a protrusion defining an opening 15b for receiving a stabilizer of the elongate tool 11, wherein the gaps and the protrusion are positioned on a front surface of the transparent cover (see at least abstract, figs. 1-2, 4-5, 10 and par 0057, 0059-0060 & 0071-0072). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the medical device of Silverstein as modified by Davidson wherein the transparent cover further comprises one or more gaps positioned to receive pincer arms and a protrusion defining an opening for receiving a stabilizer of the elongate tool, wherein the gaps and the protrusion are positioned on a front surface of the transparent cover thereof as taught by Marescaux since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Marescaux) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing a system for transgastric or transluminal endoscopic surgery with a thin profile so as to be easily insertable into a patient and is capable of creating an effective working triangle for the surgeon, allowing easy illumination and viewing of a surgical site, wherein fluid matter may be easily delivered to a surgical site (see at least par 0015-0019 of Marescaux)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 31, Silverstein as modified by Davidson discloses the visualization medical device of claim 1, that fails to explicitly teach a visualization medical device wherein the proximal surface defines a recess configured to receive at least a portion of a stabilizer of the visualization medical device when the transparent cover is attached to the distal end of the elongated shaft. However, Marescaux teaches that it is known to provide a visualization medical device wherein the proximal surface
PNG
media_image1.png
488
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
defines a recess 15b configured to receive at least a portion of a stabilizer of the visualization medical device when the cover 13 is attached to the distal end of the elongated shaft 11 (see at least figs. 1-7 & 10 and par 0061-0063, 0069 & 0072-0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the medical device of Silverstein as modified by Davidson wherein the proximal surface defines a recess configured to receive at least a portion of a stabilizer of the visualization medical device when the transparent cover thereof is attached to the distal end of the elongated shaft as taught by Marescaux since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Marescaux) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing a system for transgastric or transluminal endoscopic surgery with a thin profile so as to be easily insertable into a patient and is capable of creating an effective working triangle for the surgeon, allowing easy illumination and viewing of a surgical site, wherein fluid matter may be easily delivered to a surgical site (see at least par 0015-0019 of Marescaux)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 32, Silverstein as modified by Davidson discloses the visualization medical device of claim 1, that fails to explicitly a visualization medical device wherein the transparent cover includes a protrusion defining an opening configured to receive a stabilizer of the visualization medical device. However, Marescaux teaches that it is known to provide a visualization medical device wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
488
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the cover 13 includes a protrusion defining an opening 15b configured to receive a stabilizer of the visualization medical device (see at least figs. 1-7 & 10 and par 0061-0063, 0069 & 0072-0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the medical device of Silverstein as modified by Davidson wherein the transparent cover thereof includes a protrusion defining an opening configured to receive a stabilizer of the visualization medical device as taught by Marescaux since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Marescaux) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Silverstein) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing a system for transgastric or transluminal endoscopic surgery with a thin profile so as to be easily insertable into a patient and is capable of creating an effective working triangle for the surgeon, allowing easy illumination and viewing of a surgical site, wherein fluid matter may be easily delivered to a surgical site (see at least par 0015-0019 of Marescaux)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 12, 16-19, 21-27 & 29-32 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/0286475 to Robertson discloses an endoscope with distal tip having encased optical components and display orientation capabilities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE T TOWA whose telephone number is (313)446-6655. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/RENE T TOWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791