DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 8/15/2025. Claims 1-3, 6, 11 and 14 are amended and claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 1-10, 12, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 9,574,870 to Yamazaki et al. (hereinafter Yamazaki) in view of U.S. 6,286,514 to Lemelson (hereinafter Lemelson).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki discloses an endoscopic probe (Fig. 1) comprising: a flexible light guide (optical fiber 1, Fig. 1) extending from a proximal end (to the right of Fig. 1) of the endoscopic probe to a distal end (to the left of Fig. 1) portion of the endoscopic probe; a motor (first motor 12, Fig. 1) in the distal end portion of the endoscopic probe, the motor comprising a rotor (rotor magnet 11, Fig. 1) that is rotatable relative to the light guide about an axis of rotation (along rotating shaft 10, Fig. 1); a light deflector (“First optical path conversion means 3a and 3b including mirrors having planar shapes are rotatably attached to a tip of the rotation side optical fiber 2 independently from the rotation side optical fiber 2 by a first motor 12”) connected to be driven to rotate by the rotor, the light deflector located at a location between the rotor and a distal end of the endoscopic probe (Fig. 1); wherein the rotor is configured to provide a light path extending axially through the rotor (opening for hollow shaft 10, Fig. 1), the light path arranged to carry light between the light deflector and the light guide; wherein the light deflector is surrounded by an unobstructed window (light transmitting part 21, Fig. 1) that extends 360 degrees around the axis and the deflector at the location between the rotor and the distal end of the endoscopic probe (Fig. 1).
Yamazaki discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose at least part of the light path located between a distal axial end of the light guide and the light deflector comprises an aperture defined by, and extending axially through, the rotor.
Lemelson discloses at least part of the light path located between a distal axial end of the light guide (end of wires 409 of light guide 402, Fig. 25) and the light deflector (mirror deflector 408, Fig. 25) comprises an aperture defined by, and extending axially through, the rotor (rotor 406, Fig. 25; col. 23, ln. 60-col. 24, ln. 22).
It is noted that the precise position of the facets of light guide wires 409 is not disclosed relative to the rotor 406 structure in Fig. 25. As the claim limits the “distal axial end of the light guide”, the broadest reasonable interpretation would extend to the optical path within the distal axial end of the light guide and from the exiting face/facet of the distal axial end of the light guide. Under this interpretation, the embodiment shown in Lemelson discloses the limitation on the optical bath as within the rotor aperture as claimed.
An alternative interpretation of the claim would limit the meaning of “distal axial end” to only the exiting surface/plane/facet of the light pipe and exclude an end length of the light pipe within light travels. Under this interpretation, the claimed optical path does not include a rotor aperture but is adjacent to a rotor aperture. Examiner holds that a person having ordinary skill in the art would find changing the relative position of the light guide wire facets and rotor to be an obvious modification of the prior art. In particular, the claim limitation amounts to a slight shortening of the optical fiber which would be understood as a design consideration for the intended light projection deflected by mirror 408. Further, such a slight shortening of the optical fibers would have amounted to routine experimentation and would have only provided predictable results in the optical system.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an optical path including an aperture rotor as taught by Lemelson with the system as disclosed by Yamazaki. The motivation would have been to “controllably direct a beam of laser light, ordinary light or other radiation at select body tissue” (col. 23, ln. 60-col. 24, ln. 22).
Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki discloses the aperture (opening for hollow shaft 10, Fig. 1) that extends axially completely through the rotor (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki discloses a portion of the light guide (optical fiber 1 and 2, Fig. 1) extends partway into the rotor along the light path (Fig. 1).
Yamazaki discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a portion of the light guide extends partway into the rotor along the light path such that the distal axial end of the light guide is located between axial ends of the rotor.
Lemelson discloses a portion of the light guide extends partway into the rotor along the light path such that the distal axial end of the light guide is located between axial ends of the rotor (Fig. 25; col. 23, ln. 60-col. 24, ln. 22).
See discussion related to “distal axial end” above.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an optical path including an aperture rotor as taught by Lemelson with the system as disclosed by Yamazaki. The motivation would have been to “controllably direct a beam of laser light, ordinary light or other radiation at select body tissue” (col. 23, ln. 60-col. 24, ln. 22).
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki discloses a cantilever member (douser , Fig. 1) extending into the aperture and an electronic device (vibrator 14, Fig. 1) supported by the cantilever member (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki discloses a lens (first optical path conversion means 3a-3b, Fig. 1) supported in the light path to rotate with the rotor.
Regarding claim 6, Yamazaki discloses the rotor is shaped to be rotatable independently of the portion of the light guide that extends partway into the rotor (Fig. 1). Note: The language limits the shape of the rotor and not the configuration otherwise. In other words, Yamazaki’s rotor is not independent of the light guide, but the rotor is shaped to be independent as it is cylindrical and shaped with an axial through hole.
Regarding claim 7, Yamazaki discloses an optically transparent window (first optical path conversion means 3a-3b, Fig. 1) carried on the rotor.
Regarding claim 8, Yamazaki discloses the light deflector comprises a mirror or a prism (second optical path conversion means 3a-3b, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Yamazaki discloses the light deflector is coupled to be rotated by the rotor by magnetic interaction between the rotor and a magnet attached to the light deflector (col. 7, ll. 23-28).
Regarding claim 10, Yamazaki discloses the light deflector is coupled to be rotated by the rotor by a member (hollow tube 10, Fig. 1) that attaches the light deflector to the rotor.
Regarding claim 12, Yamazaki discloses the rotor comprises a magnet (rotor magnet 11, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Yamazaki discloses the rotor is radially supported in an interior of a tubular motor housing (hollow tube 10, Fig. 1) by one or more bearings (bearings 9a-9b, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Yamazaki discloses one or more stoppers (douser 5 and fiber fixture 4 provide stopping functionality for bearing 9a-9b, Fig. 1) arranged to axially support the rotor wherein the one or more stoppers comprise sealing media operable to maintain an axial position of the one or more bearings (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Yamazaki discloses plural stator conductors (wires 23, Fig. 1) extending along the endoscopic probe toward the distal end of the endoscopic probe, the stator conductors extending past the rotor (wires 23 extend past motor 19, Fig. 1) in a generally axial direction at locations circumferentially spaced apart around the rotor (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Yamazaki discloses one or more stator conductors extending along the endoscopic probe toward the distal end of the endoscopic probe (wiring 23, Fig. 1), wherein a portion of the stator conductors extend in a generally radial direction to a axially adjacent to the rotor (Fig. 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Lelemson, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US Pat. No. 8,967,885 to Bhagavatula et al. (hereinafter Bhagavatula).
Regarding claim 11, Yamazaki discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a micro-lens disposed at the distal axial end of the light guide.
Bhagavatula discloses a micro-lens disposed at a distal end of the light guide (Fig. 1; col. 5, ll. 23-50).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a micro-lens as taught by Bhagavatula with the system as disclosed by Yamazaki. The motivation would have been to provide miniaturization permitting OCT imaging of biological tissues (col. 1, ll. 24-62).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Lemelson, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US Pat. No. 9,722,470 to Kelp (hereinafter Kelp).
Regarding claim 13, Yamazaki discloses the rotor consists of a permanent magnet (magnet 11, Fig. 1), with north and south magnetic poles (inherent to magnet 11, Fig. 1) and a hole extending axially between the first and second surfaces through the permanent magnet from a proximal end face of the magnet to a distal end face of the magnet wherein the light path extends along the hole (Fig. 1).
Yamazaki discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the rotor consists of a permanent magnet, with north and south magnetic poles on first and second opposed axially-extending surfaces of the magnet and a hole extending axially between the first and second surfaces through the permanent magnet from a proximal end face of the magnet to a distal end face of the magnet wherein the light path extends along the hole
Kelp discloses the rotor consists of a permanent magnet (magnet 21, Fig. 6), with north and south magnetic poles on first and second opposed axially-extending surfaces of the magnet and a hole extending axially between the first and second surfaces through the permanent magnet from a proximal end face of the magnet to a distal end face of the magnet wherein the light path extends along the hole (Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a poles on surfaces separated by a hole as taught by Kelp with the system as disclosed by Yamazaki. The motivation would have been to control friction and drag in the motor ([0046]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Lemelson, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US PG Pub. 2011/0071401 to Hastings et al. (hereinafter Hastings).
Regarding claim 16, Yamazaki discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the motor is magnetic and the one or more bearings comprise ferrofluid bearings.
Hastings discloses the motor is magnetic and the one or more bearings comprise ferrofluid bearings ([0046]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a ferrofluid bearing as taught by Hastings with the system as disclosed by Yamazaki. The motivation would have been to control friction and drag in the motor ([0046]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Lemelson, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US PG Pub. 2010/0105980 to Shimizu et al. (hereinafter Shimizu).
Regarding claim 20, Yamazaki discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose portions of the stator conductors are provided by traces on a flexible printed circuit sheet that is flexed to curve around the rotor
Shimizu discloses portions of the stator conductors (power supply lands 13, Fig. 2) are provided by traces on a flexible printed circuit sheet (flexible substrate 8, Fig. 2) that is flexed to curve around the rotor (Fig. 2; [0140]-[0141]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a flexible circuit as taught by Shimizu with the system as disclosed by Yamazaki. The motivation would have been to provide electrical control of elements while maintaining a minimal device diameter ([0140]-[0141]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is allowed.
The examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance was presented in the previous Office Action.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872