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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 8-13 in the reply filed on 12 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 and 14-20 have been withdrawn.
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 8 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. Claims 9-13 are further rejected due to their dependency to claim 8.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a first portion” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is referring to the same “first portion” as mentioned in line 3 of claim 8. Clarification is requested.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a second portion” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is referring to the same “second portion” as mentioned in line 4 of claim 8. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mihalcik ‘311 (US Pub No. 2004/0034311).
Regarding claim 8, Mihalcik ’311 teaches a medical imaging apparatus (Title, Abstract, Fig. 1), comprising:
an optical connector (flange 92 and [0036]);
a coupler (main body 28 and [0032]) configured to releasably couple to a first portion (right side of flange 92) of the optical connector; and
a camera (video camera lens 91 and [0036]) configured to releasably couple to a second portion (left side of flange 92) of the optical connector, wherein the coupler comprises a first portion (right side of main body 28) in which light is incident from the optical connector, and a second portion (left side of main body 28) in which the light passes through an inside of the coupler and is emitted ([0027]; “…transmitting light to the distal end 8 of the shaft to illuminate the anatomy being viewed through the guidewire”),
wherein the first portion is tilted with a predetermined angle with respect to the second portion (The left of main body 28 is “tilted” at an angle, 0 degrees, with respect to the right side of the main body 28.).
Regarding claim 13, Mihalcik ‘311 teaches wherein the coupler comprises an adapting unit (inside surface 42 and [0037]) including an opening therein ([0037]); a connecting unit (stem 40 and [0035]) configured to couple to the adapting unit (see Fig. 1); a securing unit (proximal end 46 and [0032]) configured to couple to the connecting unit (Stem 40 and proximal end 46 are coupled to each other.); and a covering unit configured to couple to the securing unit (collet nut 58 and [0033]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihalcik ‘311 in view of Frangioni ‘840 (US Pub No. 2019/0379840).
Regarding claim 9, Mihalcik ‘311 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein a wavelength of the light ranges from 750 nm to 830 nm.
Frangioni ‘840 teaches an imaging system may capture contrasting images of subject with NIR camera capturing the phosphorescence/NIR images of subject and the dye infused therein, and visible light sensor capturing visible light images of subject. In general, near-infrared as used herein refers to the range of wavelengths between 660-900 nanometers (“nm”) ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light of Mihalcik ‘311 to include being a wavelength from 750 nm to 830 nm as Frangioni ‘840 teaches that this will aid in capturing contrasting images.
Regarding claim 11, Mihalcik ‘311 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the camera comprises a first image sensor and a second image sensor for respectively sensing a near-infrared light and a visible light emitted from a target irradiated with the light.
Frangioni ‘840 teaches an imaging system may capture contrasting images of subject with NIR camera capturing the phosphorescence/NIR images of subject and the dye infused therein, and visible light sensor capturing visible light images of subject. In general, near-infrared as used herein refers to the range of wavelengths between 660-900 nanometers (“nm”) ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the camera of Mihalcik ‘311 to include a first image sensor and a second image sensor for respectively sensing a near-infrared light and a visible light emitted from a target irradiated with the light as Frangioni ‘840 teaches that this will aid in capturing contrasting images.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihalcik ‘311 in view of Butte et al. ‘909 (US Pub No. 2015/0381909).
Regarding claim 10, Mihalcik ‘311 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the optical connector comprises a casing and a body tube disposed m dumpalong an optical path of the light,
wherein the casing includes a beam splitter and a beam dump located on an opposite portion of a surface of the beam splitter on which the light is incident in the casing, the body tube includes a notch filter for filtering the light.
Butte et al. ‘909 teaches wherein the optical connector comprises a casing (Fig. 6A and [0018]) and a body tube ([0008]; “light path”) disposed along an optical path of the light,
wherein the casing includes a beam splitter (notch beam splitter 02 and [0018]) and a beam dump (laser clean-up filter 07 and [0018]) located on an opposite portion of a surface of the beam splitter on which the light is incident in the casing, the body tube includes a notch filter (notch filter 03 and [0018]) for filtering the light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical connector of Mihalcik ‘311 to include a casing and a body tube disposed along an optical path of the light, wherein the casing includes a beam splitter and a beam dump located on an opposite portion of a surface of the beam splitter on which the light is incident in the casing, the body tube includes a notch filter for filtering the light as Butte et al. ‘909 teaches that this will aid in providing a stream of composite images as a real-time video to assist a surgeon with removing a tumor ([0018]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihalcik ‘311 in view of Schuh et al. ‘949 (US Patent No. 10,631,949).
Regarding claim 12, Mihalcik ‘311 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the second portion of the coupler is configured to releasably couple to a sterile adapter using a quick release mechanism.
Schuh et al. ‘949 teaches the surgical robotics system may control whether the surgical tool can be removed from the sterile adapter by a user. The user may initiate the disengagement mechanism by rotating the outer housing of the surgical tool and unsecuring the surgical tool from the sterile adapter, but the surgical robotics system may not release the couplers from the instrument inputs. Only once the surgical robotics system has transitioned into the impedance mode are the couplers released and the user can remove the surgical tool. An advantage of keeping the surgical tool engaged is that the surgical robotics system can control the end-effectors of the surgical tool and position them for tool removal before the surgical tool is removed to minimize damage to the surgical tool (Column 13 Lines 38-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second portion of the coupler of Mihalcik ‘311 to include being configured to releasably couple to a sterile adapter using a quick release mechanism as Schuh et al. ‘949 teaches that this will aid in minimizing damage to the surgical tool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights