Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to claims 13-15, 17, 19, 22 and 28 in the response filed on 10 October, 2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-31 remain pending in the application.
Claims 1-12 are withdrawn.
Claims 13-31 are examined.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 USC 103 - Yarush et al. (USPN 5,879,289) in view of Melder (US PGPUB 2007/0276183).
Argument:
In regards to the amended claim 13, the applicant argues that Yarush does not teach or suggest a wireless transceiver, or a rechargeable battery internal to the endoscope, and Melder fails to remedy this deficiency [in the applicant's arguments dated 10 October, 2025, page 12].
Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant cites an embodiment of Yarush not used in the office action of 10 April, 2025 that is being discussed. The cited embodiment of Yarush has a wireless transmitter. See Yarush: 70, Figs.2, 7, col.9 ll.20-32. The cited embodiment of Yarush also discloses an internal rechargeable battery. See Yarush: [35, 179, Figs.1, 7, col.8 ll.22-30]. The device of Yarush in view of Melder provides an internal wireless transceiver.
The applicant provides further arguments that are not based on the portions of the art cited in the examination in question. As such, these arguments are moot.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13-19, 21 and 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yarush et al. (US 5,879,289) in view of Melder (US 2007/0276183).
In regards to claim 13, Yarush discloses a wireless endoscope, comprising:
a light [112, “fibers in lens tube 32”, Fig.3, col.5 ll.46-55] integrated in a first portion [portions distal to 44, Figs.1-4] of the wireless endoscope;
a lens [32, Figs.3-4, col.5 ll.36-37] positioned proximate the light in the first portion [30, 34, 88, Figs.3-4], wherein the light and the lens are configured to be inserted into a body [abstract; this is an endoscopic device designed to be inserted into a body; note the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112 (b) hereinabove];
a camera [91, Figs.3-4, col.7 ll.14-19] disposed in the first portion and configured to capture video content received through the lens;
a wireless transmitter [70, Figs.2, 7, col.9 ll.20-32] disposed in a second portion [44 and portions proximal of 44, Figs.1-4] of the wireless endoscope and configured to transmit the video content to a receiver [188, Fig.7; note that the receiver is not positively claimed] associated with a secondary device [190, Fig.7, col.14 ll.48-52; note that the secondary device is not positively claimed] to display the video content on a display [190, Fig.7, col.14 ll.49-50, note that the display is not positively claimed] separate from the wireless endoscope; and
a rechargeable battery [35, 179, Figs.1, 7, col.8 ll.22-30] disposed within the second portion and electrically coupled to power the light, camera, and wireless transmitter,
wherein an exterior surface of the wireless endoscope including both the first portion and the second portion is rounded and flexible [Fig.1, both the first and second portions include rounded exterior points and all physical objects have the property of flexibility].
However, Yarush does not positively disclose that the transmitter is a transceiver.
Melder teaches an analogous wireless viewing system [Figs.1, 12, para.46, 57] where the wireless viewing system comprises a transceiver [134, Fig.12, para.57] which transmits image data [para.7, 45, 57]. Melder teaches that this is done for the purpose of wireless control of the wireless viewing system camera [para.57].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmitter disclosed by Yarush to be a transceiver in accordance with the teachings of Melder. This would be done for the purpose taught above.
In regards to claim 14, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 1, wherein a flexible connector [Yarush: 117, Figs.3-4, col.10 ll.37-40; note that the connector is not positively recited here] connects the first portion and the second portion [as all physical objects have the property of flexibility, the connection meets this standard.].
In regards to claim 15, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 13, wherein the second portion is rounded and configured to be gripped by the user [44, Figs.1-4, col.10 ll.3-4] and not inserted into the body [The second portion of Yarush in view of Melder could be used in this fashion.];
In regards to claim 16, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 1, further comprising: a memory [Yarush: col.9 ll.43-50] for capturing video content from the camera.
In regards to claim 18, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 13, wherein an exterior surface of the wireless endoscope is cylindrical [Yarush: 30, Fig.1; note that the case is not positively recited here], and wherein a diameter of the first portion is narrower than a diameter of the second portion [Yarush: Figs.1-5].
In regards to claim 19, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 13, wherein a diameter of the first portion is narrower than a diameter of the second portion [Yarush: Figs.1-5].
In regards to claim 21, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 13, wherein the light includes a plurality of lights [Yarush: individual fibers of fiber bundle 112, col.5 ll.46-55].
In regards to claim 24, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 13, wherein the wireless endoscope is wand-shaped [Yarush: Fig.1; the wireless endoscope comprises portions which are wand-shaped].
In regards to claim 25, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 13, further comprising: a memory [Yarush: col.9 ll.43-50] that captures the video content from the camera.
In regards to claim 26, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 13, wherein the light and the lens extend from a distal end of a case [Yarush: portions of exterior of endoscope excepting distal portions of 30/34 where light is emitted from the distal end 93 of 32, Figs.1-4, col.5 ll.46-55, Figs.1-4: note this means the fibers extend from the distal end of the case], wherein the case encloses the camera [Yarush: 91, Figs.3-4], wireless transceiver [Yarush: 70, Fig.2], and rechargeable battery [Yarush: 35, Fig.1: the applicant has not defined the case as to exclude the exterior of 35 as being part of the case.].
In regards to claim 27, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 26, wherein a diameter of the case varies with the first portion being narrower than a diameter of the second portion [Yarush: Fig.1].
In regards to claim 28, Yarush discloses a wireless endoscope, comprising:
a light [112, “fibers in lens tube 32”, Fig.3, col.5 Il.46-55] integrated in a first portion [portions distal to 44, Figs.1-4] of the wireless endoscope;
a lens [32, Figs.3-4, col.5 Il.36-37] positioned proximate the light in the first portion [30, 34, 88, Figs.3-4], wherein the light and the lens are configured to be inserted into a body [abstract; this is an endoscopic device designed to be inserted into a body; note the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112 (b) hereinabove];
a camera [91, Fig.4, col.7 ll.14-19] disposed in the first portion and configured to capture video content received through the lens;
a wireless transmitter [70, Figs.2, 7, col.9 Il.20-32] disposed in a second portion [44 and portions proximal thereto, Figs.1-4] of the wireless endoscope transmits the video content to a receiver [188, Fig.7; note that the receiver is not positively claimed] associated with a secondary device [190, Fig.7, col.14 Il.48-52; note that the secondary device is not positively claimed] to display the video content on a display [190, Fig.7, col.14 ll.49-50, note that the display is not positively claimed] separate from the wireless endoscope; and
a rechargeable battery [35, 179, Figs.1, 7, col.8 Il.22-30] disposed within the second portion and electrically coupled to power the light, camera, and wireless transmitter,
wherein an exterior surface of the wireless endoscope including both the first portion and the second portion is rounded [Fig.1, both the first and second portions include rounded exterior points],
wherein the first portion is configured for insertion into the body [Figs.1-4: the first portion has parts configured for insertion into the body], and the second portion is configured to be gripped [col.10 ll.3-4] and remain external to the body to provide wireless communication with the second device [col.9 ll.20-32, col.14 ll.48-52].
However, Yarush does not positively disclose that the transmitter is a transceiver.
Melder teaches an analogous wireless viewing system [Figs.1, 12, para.46, 57] where the wireless viewing system comprises a transceiver [134, Fig.12, para.57] which transmits image data [para.7, 45, 57]. Melder teaches that this is done for the purpose of wireless control of the wireless viewing system camera [para.57].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmitter disclosed by Yarush to be a transceiver in accordance with the teachings of Melder. This would be done for the purpose taught above.
In regards to claim 29, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 28, wherein the wireless endoscope is wand-shaped [Yarush: Fig.1; the wireless endoscope comprises portions which are wand-shaped].
In regards to claim 30, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 28, wherein an exterior surface of the wireless endoscope is cylindrical [Yarush: 30, Fig.1; note that the case is not positively recited here], and wherein a diameter of the first portion is narrower than a diameter of the second portion [Yarush: Figs.1-5].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yarush et al. (US 5,879,289) in view of Melder (US 2007/0276183) and Durell (US 2006/0129032)
In regards to claim 17, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 13, however does not positively teach wherein the camera includes a swivel lens and zoom.
Melder further teaches wherein a camera may zoom [para.52]. Melder teaches that this is done for the purpose of adjusting images used by physicians [para.52].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera taught by Yarush to include a zoom in accordance with the teachings of Melder. This would be done for the purpose taught above, as well as the predictable result of acquiring higher resolution images of critical anatomical structures.
Yarush in view of Melder teaches the above except for wherein the camera includes a swivel lens.
Durell teaches an analogous endoscope [Figs.1-4] wherein a camera [61, Figs.3-4, para.20] includes a swivel lens [54, Figs.3-4, para.22].
Durell teaches that this is done for the purpose of varying the angle of view from the tip of the endoscope [para.27].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the lens taught by Yarush in view of Melder to be configured to rotate in accordance with the teachings of Durell. This would be done for the purpose taught above.
Claims 20 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yarush et al. (US 5,879,289) in view of Melder (US 2007/0276183) and Berguer et al. (US 2009/0192390)
In regards to claim 20, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 13, wherein the light [Yarush: col.5 ll.66-col.6 ll.19] and camera [col.6 ll.57-60] are configured to communicate and receive visible light.
However, Yarush in view of Melder does not positively teach wherein the light and camera are configured to communicate and recieve a plurality of spectra including at least visible light and infrared.
Yarush further discloses that the light produces infrared wavelengths [Yarush: col.5 ll.66-col.6 ll.19] and that camera comprises a CCD chip [Yarush: 91, Fig.4, col.7 ll.6-8].
Berguer teaches an analogous wireless endoscope wherein the light [503, para.43, “integrated into the laparoscope 504 itself”] and camera [“CCD”, para.49] utilizes a plurality of spectra including at least visible light and infrared. Berguer teaches that this is done for the purpose of visualizing a fluorescent agent introduced into the body [abstract, para.28].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the light and camera taught by Yarush in view of Melder to communicate and recieve both infrared and visible light in accordance with the teachings of Berguer. This would be done for the purpose taught above.
In regards to claim 31, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 18, wherein the light [Yarush: col.5 ll.66-col.6 ll.19] and camera [col.6 ll.57-60] utilize visible light.
However, Yarush in view of Melder does not positively teach wherein the light and camera utilize a plurality of spectra including at least visible light and infrared.
Yarush further discloses that the light produces infrared wavelengths [Yarush: col.5 ll.66-col.6 ll.19] and that camera comprises a CCD chip [Yarush: 91, Fig.4, col.7 ll.6-8].
Berguer teaches an analogous wireless endoscope wherein the light [503, para.43, “integrated into the laparoscope 504 itself”] and camera [“CCD”, para.49] utilizes a plurality of spectra including at least visible light and infrared. Berguer teaches that this is done for the purpose of visualizing a fluorescent agent introduced into the body [abstract, para.28].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the light and camera taught by Yarush in view of Melder to utilize both infrared and visible light accordance with the teachings of Berguer. This would be done for the purpose taught above.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yarush et al. (US 5,879,289) in view of Melder (US 2007/0276183) and Ozawa et al. (US 2011/0071352).
In regards to claim 22, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 13, wherein the light comprises an incandescent lamp [Yarush: col.6 ll.4] which communicates light through optical fibers for illumination into the body,
however does not positively disclose wherein the light is configured to communicate multiple spectrums of light, or particularly describe the light communicated.
Ozawa teaches an endoscope [Fig.11] where white light is emitted from a lamp [81, Fig.11, para.80] through optical fibers for illumination [83, Fig.11, para.80].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the light taught by Yarush in view of Melder to comprise a white light source in accordance with the teaching of Ozawa. This would be done as Ozawa shows this is known in the art.
This would provide a light that is configured to communicate multiple spectrums of light into the body, as white light comprises multiple spectra.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yarush et al. (US 5,879,289) in view of Melder (US 2007/0276183) and Howell et al. (US 2001/0030683)
In regards to claim 23, Yarush in view of Melder teaches the wireless endoscope of claim 13, however does not positively teach wherein the camera is remotely controllable.
Howell teaches that a surgical camera may be remotely controlled [Figs.27-28, para.42-43, 148-156, note the applicant’s disclosure on this feature is unusually limited].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera taught by Yarush in view of Melder to be remotely controllable in accordance with the teaching of Howell. This would be done for the predictable result of enabling operation of the camera by remote practitioners.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action (EG altered interpretation of the art). 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 AARON B FAIRCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-5276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5pm Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AARON B FAIRCHILD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795