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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 21, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“optical component” in Claim 1;
“second optical component” in Claim 11; and
“mechanism for articulating an instrument” in Claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
More specifically:
the claimed “optical component” in Claim 1 is interpreted as the optical layer 306 shown in FIG. 20A of the present patent application;
the claimed “second optical component” in Claim 11 is interpreted as the optical layer 320 shown in FIG. 21 of the present patent application; and
the claimed “mechanism for articulating an instrument” in Claim 13 is interpreted as the elevator 166 shown in FIG. 2 of the present patent application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
More specifically, Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for use of the term “to reduce a substantial portion of the reflected light in a visible range of light waves”. It is unclear what a “substantial portion” is. Although section 2173.05(b)(III)(D) of the MPEP states that substantial/substantially are broad terms, there is still a requirement for the specification to provide guidelines for the scope of the phrase. In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 184 USPQ 484 (CCPA 1975). In the instant case, it is unclear what a “substantial portion” of the reflected light means (30%, 50%, 99%, etc.?)
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US PGPUB 2018/0206708 – “Miller”) in view of Nadeau, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,549,794 – “Nadeau”) and Goto et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0275786 – “Goto”).
Regarding Claim 1, Miller discloses:
A coupler device (Miller Fig. 2A, coupler device 10) for an endoscope (Miller FIG. 2A, duodenum scope 40) having a light (Miller FIG. 2A, light guide 44) and a camera lens (Miller FIG. 2A, lens 46), the coupler device comprising:
a main body (Miller FIG. 1A, main body 12) comprising an at least partially closed distal end (Miller FIG. 1A, distal end 16) and a proximal end (Miller FIG. 1A, proximal end 14) configured for attachment to a distal end portion of the endoscope (Miller FIG. 1A, proximal end of coupler device 10 attached to distal end of duodenum scope 40);
a substantially transparent visualization section disposed between the light and the camera lens of the endoscope and a target site within the patient to allow viewing of the target site (Miller FIG. 9, coupler device 10; Miller paragraph [0054], “coupler device 10 may be made of any biocompatible material, such as for example, silicone or another elastic or polymeric material. In addition, the material may be transparent. As shown in FIG. 9, the coupler device 10 may be formed of a transparent material to provide a transparent covering of the scope camera and light source, thereby allowing unhindered performance of the scope 40.”).
Miller does not explicitly disclose an optical component on, or within, the visualization section or the main body.
Nadeau teaches an optical component on, or within, the visualization section or the main body (Nadeau FIG. 2, optically transparent face portion 212 on closed end portion 210 of cap 130, which is on the distal end of probe body 240; Nadeau col. 5 lines 14-15, “transparent face portion 212 is an anti-reflective coated glass”; Nadeau col. 1 lines 28-31,“This invention relates to disposable protective caps for use on medical instruments. More particularly, the invention relates to a disposable protective cap for use on spectral imaging devices.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nadeau’s anti-reflective coated glass with Miller’s coupler/end cap. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of reduction of image glare formed on an imaging device in an endoscope distortion (see col. 4, lines 21-24 of Nadeau).
Miller in view of Nadeau does not explicitly teach wherein the optical component comprises a light absorbing strip within the visualization section of the coupler device, the light absorbing strip being positioned to absorb stray light from an interior of the patient.
Goto teaches wherein the optical component comprises a light absorbing strip (Goto FIG. 5, block layer 40 on optical unit 30A) within the visualization section (Goto FIG. 4, optical unit 30A) of the coupler device (Goto FIG. 5, distal end of endoscope 10A used to couple image pickup section 13A to lenses 31B) , the light absorbing strip being positioned to absorb stray light from an interior of the patient (Goto paragraph [0064], “black layer 40 containing carbon pigment or black organic dyestuff prevents light reflection on the side surface of the lens”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Goto’s black layer with the coupler device taught by Miller in view of Nadeau. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscopic device that “is effective in preventing a flare or a ghost in a picked-up image” (see paragraph [0062] of Goto).
Regarding Claim 2, Miller in view of Nadeau and Goto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Nadeau further teaches wherein the optical component comprises an anti-reflective coating disposed on an inner surface of the visualization section (Nadeau FIG. 2, anti-reflective face portion 212 on interior of cap 130; see Nadeau col. 5, lines 14-15).
Regarding Claim 3, Miller in view of Nadeau and Goto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Nadeau further teaches wherein the optical component comprises an optical layer configured to reduce a substantial portion of the reflected light in a visible range of light waves (Nadeau col. 4 lines 28-31, “Transmittance through optically transparent face portion 212 should be equal to or greater than ninety percent from 500 nanometers (nm) to 650 nm.”; thus no more than 10% of visible light in the green-red spectrum is reflected by face portion 212).
Regarding Claim 4, Miller in view of Nadeau and Goto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Goto further teaches wherein the optical component comprises a magnesium fluoride coating (Goto FIG. 4, layer 32 over lens 31; Goto paragraph [0049], “in the image pickup optical unit 30, a solder-repellant layer 32, which is composed of magnesium fluoride as a transparent material, is formed into a film on a substantially entire face of an outer surface of the lens 31”; Note that paragraph [0096] of the present patent application admits that optical layers on a visualization section can be disposed on a camera lens.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Goto’s magnesium fluoride coating with the coupler device taught by Miller in view of Nadeau. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a transparent outer optical coating that can be used with other materials (e.g., bonding member 33 shown in Goto FIG. 4) to protect a lens.
Regarding Claim 7, Miller in view of Nadeau and Goto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Miller further discloses wherein the visualization section comprises a substantially transparent viewing surface between the camera lens and the light and the target sight (Miller FIG. 9, coupler device 10 coupled to scope 40; Miller paragraph [0054], “the coupler device 10 may be formed of a transparent material to provide a transparent covering of the scope camera and light source, thereby allowing unhindered performance of the scope 40.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Miller in view of Nadeau and Goto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Miller further discloses wherein the visualization section comprises a substantially transparent material disposed within the main body (Miller FIG. 9, coupler device 10 having a main body 12 as shown in Miller FIG. 1A; Miller paragraph [0054], “coupler device 10 may be made of any biocompatible material, such as for example, silicone or another elastic or polymeric material. In addition, the material may be transparent. As shown in FIG. 9, the coupler device 10 may be formed of a transparent material to provide a transparent covering of the scope camera and light source, thereby allowing unhindered performance of the scope 40.”).
Regarding Claim 13, Miller in view of Nadeau and Goto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Miller further discloses a mechanism (Miller FIG. 10, actuating cable 54 connected to working channel extension 34) for articulating an instrument passing through a working channel on the endoscope (Miller paragraph [0049], “working channel extension 34 serves as an exit portal for instruments to pass through the scope 40 to reach different areas of the body”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US PGPUB 2018/0206708 – “Miller”) in view of Nadeau, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,549,794 – “Nadeau”), Goto et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0275786 – “Goto”), and Ohno (US PGPUB 2016/0323527 – “Ohno”).
Regarding Claim 5, Miller in view of Nadeau and Goto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Miller in view of Nadeau and Goto does not explicitly teach wherein the optical component comprises two or more anti-reflecting coatings.
Ohno teaches wherein the optical component comprises two or more anti-reflecting coatings (Ohno FIG. 3, protective glass 225 between anti-reflective coating 217a and anti-reflective coating 217b).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ohno’s multiple anti-reflective coatings with the coupler device taught by Miller in view of Nadeau and Goto. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a protective glass that has anti-reflective properties for both a light source as well as light being returned from a target.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US PGPUB 2018/0206708 – “Miller”) in view of Nadeau, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,549,794 – “Nadeau”), Goto et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0275786 – “Goto”), and Hsu et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0174144 – “Hsu”).
Regarding Claim 11, Miller in view of Nadeau and Goto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Miller in view of Nadeau and Goto does not explicitly teach a second optical component on, or within, the visualization section, wherein the second optical component is configured to inhibit condensation of fluids on the visualization section.
Hsu teaches a second optical component on, or within, the visualization section, wherein the second optical component is configured to inhibit condensation of fluids on the visualization section (Hsu FIG. 3, lens cover film; Hsu paragraph [0051], ”the lens cover film may be…coated…to achieve anti-fog capability. Surfactant, polymer, or corona treatment, for example, may provide a hydrophilic surface to the lens cover film that can provide anti-fog quality to the film.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hsu’s anti-fogging coating with the coupler device taught by Miller in view of Nadeau and Goto. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope device that produces images that are not distorted by fogging.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US PGPUB 2018/0206708 – “Miller”) in view of Nadeau, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,549,794 – “Nadeau”), Goto et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0275786 – “Goto”), and Ramanujam et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0315444 – “Ramanujam”).
Regarding Claim 19, Miller in view of Nadeau and Goto teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Miller in view of Nadeau and Goto does not explicitly teach wherein the optical component comprises a baffle on the coupler device, the baffle having one or more vanes configured to direct stray light away from the camera lens.
Ramanujam teaches wherein the optical component comprises a baffle on the coupler device, the baffle having one or more vanes configured to direct stray light away from the camera lens (Ramanujam FIG. 8A, light baffle 260 within end cap 130; Ramanujam paragraph [0092], ”light baffle 260 which acts as a physical entrance aperture with an opaque light absorbing coating to prevent image vignetting and eliminate environmental or stray illumination light”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ramanujam’s light baffle with the coupler device taught by Miller in view of Nadeau and Goto. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope that prevents image vignetting (unwanted darkening of an image toward the periphery of the image).
Claims 20-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US PGPUB 2018/0206708 – “Miller”) in view of Hsu et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0174144 – “Hsu”) and Hessler et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0357761 – “Hessler”).
Regarding Claim 20, Miller discloses:
A coupler device (Miller Fig. 2A, coupler device 10) for an endoscope (Miller FIG. 2A, duodenum scope 40) having a light (Miller FIG. 2A, light guide 44) and a camera lens (Miller FIG. 2A, lens 46), the coupler device comprising:
a main body (Miller FIG. 1A, main body 12) comprising an at least partially closed distal end (Miller FIG. 1A, distal end 16) and a proximal end (Miller FIG. 1A, proximal end 14) configured for attachment to a distal end portion of the endoscope (Miller FIG. 1A, proximal end of coupler device 10 attached to distal end of duodenum scope 40);
a substantially transparent visualization section disposed between the light and the camera lens of the endoscope and a target site within the patient to allow viewing of the target site (Miller FIG. 9, coupler device 10; Miller paragraph [0054], “coupler device 10 may be made of any biocompatible material, such as for example, silicone or another elastic or polymeric material. In addition, the material may be transparent. As shown in FIG. 9, the coupler device 10 may be formed of a transparent material to provide a transparent covering of the scope camera and light source, thereby allowing unhindered performance of the scope 40.”).
Miller does not explicitly disclose a first optical layer within the visualization section and configured to inhibit condensation of fluid on the visualization section.
Hsu teaches an optical layer within the visualization section and configured to inhibit condensation of fluid on the visualization section (Hsu FIG. 3, lens cover film; Hsu paragraph [0051], ”the lens cover film may be…coated…to achieve anti-fog capability. Surfactant, polymer, or corona treatment, for example, may provide a hydrophilic surface to the lens cover film that can provide anti-fog quality to the film.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hsu’s anti-fogging coating with the coupler device disclosed by Miller. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope device that produces images that are not distorted by fogging.
Miller in view of Hsu does not explicitly teach a second optical layer within the visualization section, the second optical layer being configured to reduce an amount of reflected light on the visualization section.
Hessler teaches a second optical layer within the visualization section, the second optical layer being configured to reduce an amount of reflected light on the visualization section. (Hessler FIG. 4, recess 408 in protective cap 400 for an endoscopic imaging device; Hessler paragraph [0015], “the bottom of the recess may have electrical connections and consist of glass that can be darkened”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hessler’s variably darkened cap with the coupler device taught by Miller in view of Hsu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscopic device capable of having an electronic variable aperture (see paragraph [0015] of Hessler, “glass that can be darkened and in that way be set up as a variable aperture. In addition, an optical filter may be provided, which is arranged in front of or behind the aperture”).
Regarding Claim 21, Miller in view of Hsu and Hessler teaches the features of Claim 20, as described above.
Hsu further teaches wherein the optical layer comprises one or more chemicals applied to an outer surface of, or within, the visualization section, the chemicals being configured to inhibit condensation of water on the visualization section (Hsu FIG. 3, lens cover film; Hsu paragraph [0051], ”the lens cover film may be…coated…to achieve anti-fog capability. Surfactant, polymer, or corona treatment, for example, may provide a hydrophilic surface to the lens cover film that can provide anti-fog quality to the film.”).
Regarding Claim 22, Miller in view of Hsu and Hessler teaches the features of Claim 20, as described above.
Hsu further teaches wherein the optical layer comprises an anti-fogging film applied to a surface of the visualization section (Hsu FIG. 3, lens cover film; Hsu paragraph [0051], ”the lens cover film may be…coated…to achieve anti-fog capability. Surfactant, polymer, or corona treatment, for example, may provide a hydrophilic surface to the lens cover film that can provide anti-fog quality to the film.”).
Regarding Claim 23, Miller in view of Hsu and Hessler teaches the features of Claim 20, as described above.
Hsu further teaches wherein the optical layer comprises a surfactant configured to minimize surface tension of water on the visualization section (Hsu FIG. 3, lens cover film; Hsu paragraph [0051], ”the lens cover film may be…coated…to achieve anti-fog capability. Surfactant, polymer, or corona treatment, for example, may provide a hydrophilic surface to the lens cover film that can provide anti-fog quality to the film.”).
Regarding Claim 24, Miller in view of Hsu and Hessler teaches the features of Claim 20, as described above.
Hsu further teaches wherein the optical layer comprises a hydrophilic coating on a surface of the visualization section (Hsu FIG. 3, lens cover film; Hsu paragraph [0051], ”the lens cover film may be…coated…to achieve anti-fog capability. Surfactant, polymer, or corona treatment, for example, may provide a hydrophilic surface to the lens cover film that can provide anti-fog quality to the film.”).
Regarding Claim 25, Miller in view of Hsu and Hessler teaches the features of Claim 20, as described above.
Miller further discloses wherein the visualization section comprises a substantially transparent viewing surface between the camera lens and the light and the target sight (Miller FIG. 9, coupler device 10; Miller paragraph [0054], “coupler device 10 may be made of any biocompatible material, such as for example, silicone or another elastic or polymeric material. In addition, the material may be transparent. As shown in FIG. 9, the coupler device 10 may be formed of a transparent material to provide a transparent covering of the scope camera and light source, thereby allowing unhindered performance of the scope 40.”).
Regarding Claim 27, Miller in view of Hsu and Hessler teaches the features of Claim 20, as described above.
Miller further discloses wherein the visualization section comprises a substantially transparent material disposed within the main body (Miller FIG. 9, coupler device 10 having a main body 12 as shown in Miller FIG. 1A; Miller paragraph [0054], “coupler device 10 may be made of any biocompatible material, such as for example, silicone or another elastic or polymeric material. In addition, the material may be transparent. As shown in FIG. 9, the coupler device 10 may be formed of a transparent material to provide a transparent covering of the scope camera and light source, thereby allowing unhindered performance of the scope 40.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the May 21, 2025 response, Applicant argues that Claim 1 should be allowed since Miller in view of Nadeau does not teach or suggest a light absorbing strip within the visualization section of the coupler device. However, as described above, Gato is cited for teaching this feature, not Miller in view of Nadeau. As such, the argument is unpersuasive.
On pages 7-8, Applicant argues that there would be no reason to incorporate Gato’s light absorbing strip with Miller in view of Nadeau since Miller’s coupler device is not optically transparent. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0054] of Miller explicitly states that “coupler device 10 may be…transparent. As shown in FIG. 9, the coupler device 10 may be formed of a transparent material to provide a transparent covering of the scope camera and light source, thereby allowing unhindered performance of the scope 40.”).
Applicant further argues that there would be no motivation to utilize Goto’s light absorbing strip with Miller in view of Nadeau since Goto’s light absorbing strip is applied to a side of lens, not within a visualization section of the coupler device. As described in the Abstract of the present patent application, the claimed “visualization section” is part of the main body of the coupler device used to reduce glare and/or fogging. (See also FIGs. 20A-20C of the present specification, which shows visualization section 300 that is part of a main body of the optical coupler, as explained in paragraph [0097].) Examiner believes that Goto’s light absorbing strip 40 between the lens frame 34 and the lens 31 clearly reads on this feature.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that Miller in view of Hsu does not teach/suggest a second optical layer within the visualization section. Examiner notes that Hessler, not Miller and/or Hsu, is cited against this feature, as previously presented in the rejection of (now cancelled) Claim 29. Applicant states that reason why it would not be obvious to combine the teachings of Miller, Hsu, and Hessler in the previous rejection of Claim 29 were presented in Applicant’s last response. Examiner is unable to find such arguments/reasons in the previous responses, including those file on April 15, 2025 and/or December 18, 2024.
On pages 9-10, Applicant argues that Miller in view of Hsu does not second optical elements within the visualization section of the optical coupler, as claimed in Claim 20. However, Miller and Hsu are not cited for teaching this feature. Rather, Hessler teaches a second optical layer within the visualization section, the second optical layer being configured to reduce an amount of reflected light on the visualization section. (Hessler FIG. 4, recess 408 in protective cap 400 for an endoscopic imaging device; Hessler paragraph [0015], “the bottom of the recess may have electrical connections and consist of glass that can be darkened”).
On page 10, Applicant argues that Nadeau does not teach an anti-reflective optical component with the lens or within any other component of the endoscope. Although not so stated in the May 21, 2025 response, Examiner assumes that Applicant is referencing Claim 2, which is the only claim presently pending that claims an anti-reflective coating. However, Nadeau col. 5 lines 14-15 explicitly states that “transparent face portion 212 is an anti-reflective coated glass”, and then makes it clear in Nadeau col. 1 lines 28-31 that “the invention relates to a disposable protective cap for use on spectral imaging devices.”).
Finally, Applicant argues that the features/rejections discussed herein were not discussed in the May 9, 2025 Advisory Action. Examiner notes that the scope of the May 9, 2025 Advisory Action was in response to the claim amendments filed on April 15, 2025, and not amendments filed on May 21, 2025 currently being examined. The present Office Action addresses all features found in the May 21, 2025 amendments to the claims.
As such, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 19-25, and 27 are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
1/21/26