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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 17, 2026 has been entered.
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, 11-13, 23-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmieding et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0204083 – Schmieding”) in view of Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”), Fang et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0285309 – “Fang”), and Hatase et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0307872 – “Hatase”).
Regarding Claim 1,
Schmieding discloses:
An arthroscope (Schmieding FIG. 1, arthroscope 100), comprising:
a handle (Schmieding FIG. 1, handle/body 5) and an insertion shaft (Schmieding FIG. 1, shaft 20),
the insertion shaft (Schmieding FIG. 1, second member 40 of arthroscope 100) having an outer diameter of no more than 6mm (Schmieding paragraph [0033], “second member 40…having an outer diameter of about 5mm”), the insertion shaft having rigidity and strength for insertion of the camera into joints for arthroscopic surgery (Schmieding paragraph [0027], “arthroscope 100 is designed, dimensioned and configured to be…securely positioned within a knee joint.”).
Schmieding does not explicitly disclose:
the insertion shaft having near its distal end a solid state camera, the insertion shaft having enclosed therein at least one light guide designed to conduct illumination light to the distal end through a space between the camera and the inner surface of the insertion shaft,
the one or more light guide(s) having a cross-section other than circular, the lightguide having a coupling to accept illumination light from a circular-cross-section optical fiber.
Honda is analogous art in the field of endoscopes that teaches:
the insertion shaft (Honda FIG. 1, insertion portion 4) having near its distal end a solid state camera (Honda FIG. 3, image pickup portion 20; Honda paragraph [0065], “image pickup portion 20 such as a CCD”), the insertion shaft having enclosed therein at least one light guide (Honda FIG. 3, rigid circular arc portion 90a, which is part of light guide 90 shown in Honda FIG. 5) designed to conduct illumination light to the distal end through a space between the camera and the inner surface of the insertion shaft (Honda FIG. 3, showing distal end 90s of light guide 90 between image pickup portion 20 and the inner surface of the distal tip 6 of in insertion portion 4 shown in Honda FIG. 1),
the one or more light guide(s) having a cross-section other than circular (Honda FIG. 9, showing arcuate shape of rigid circular arc portion 90a of light guide 90), the lightguide having a coupling (Honda FIG. 9, rigid shape transition portion 90b) to accept illumination light from a circular-cross-section optical fiber (Honda FIG. 9, flexible portion 90c of light guide 90; Honda paragraph [0080], “flexible portion 90c…is configured with a plurality of light guide fibers inserted in an elastic tube.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmieding’s rigid insertion shaft with the optical features taught by Honda’s insertion shaft. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to know methods to yield the predicable result of an endoscope that has greater direct user-control during in situ positioning of the insertion portion.
Schmieding in view of Honda does not explicitly teach at least one surface of the one or more light guide(s) being longitudinally fluted.
Fang is analogous art in the field of light optics that teaches at least one surface of the one or more light guide(s) (Fang FIG. 5, light guide 12) being longitudinally fluted (Fang FIG. 5, arc-shaped slots 26 cut on the light-emitting surface 12b).
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 Fang’s longitudinal fluting/ridges/grooves with Honda’s rigid circular arc light guide in the arthroscope taught by Schmieding in view of Honda. 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 light source having luminance uniformity (see Fang paragraph [0032]).
Schmieding in view of Honda and Fang does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of light guides of the one or more light guide(s) form an integral part.
Hatase teaches wherein a plurality of light guides (Hatase FIG. 28, optical fibers 59) of the one or more light guide(s) form an integral part (Hatase FIG. 28, tip portion 15 of endoscope 11 and mold resin 145; Hatase paragraph [0170], “the plurality of optical fibers 59 that constitutes the light guide 57 is allowed to form a fiber bundle by the mold resin 145…The mold resin 145 is molded in the same shape as the half-moon columnar-shaped portion at the position of any one of the four half-moon columnar-shaped portions…the plurality of optical fibers 59 is integrally molded in the half-moon columnar-shaped portion in a state where the optical fibers 59 are arranged in a row and inserted.”).
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 Hatase’s molded integral light guides 57 shown in Hatase FIG. 28 with the system taught by Schmieding in view of Honda and Fang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of a system that has enhanced light-shielding as provided by Hatase’s mold resin (see Hatase paragraph [0171]).
As (1) the combination of the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, as described above; (2) the record shows no evidence of each element taught by the cited prior art performing differently in combination as it does separately (i.e., either alone or in combination the system for focusing performs in a same manner); and (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., nothing in the record supports a conclusion that combining Hatase’s molded light guides with the system taught by Schmieding, Honda¸ and Fang would result an unpredictable result of a light guide system having enhanced light-shielding performance (see Hatase paragraph [0171]). As such, no additional findings based on the Graham (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 2, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further teaches a plurality of light guides are molded together as a single part (Honda FIG. 5, showing multiple light guides 90 and 90’ in a barrel body of the distal end portion 6 of insertion portion 4 shown in Honda FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further teaches the one or more light guide(s) have an arcuate cross-section (Honda FIG. 9, showing arcuate shape of rigid circular arc portion 90a of light guide 90).
Regarding Claim 4, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Fang further teaches a distal surface of the one or more light guides is designed to diffuse emitted light (Fang paragraph [0011], “arc-shaped longitudinal structures on the light-emitting surface further diffuse the light rays to allow for a more uniform surface emission”).
Regarding Claim 11, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further teaches at least some component parts arranged near the distal end to permit focus adjustment of a lens assembly during manufacturing (Honda paragraph [0058], which describes positioning of lens components as being well known),
wherein the component parts near the distal end include the lens assembly (Honda FIG. 3, lens group 14) and front chassis (Honda FIG. 3, front chassis lens barrel 210).
Regarding Claim 12, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further teaches a terminal window (Honda FIG. 3 window/lens 12) designed to seal with the insertion shaft to prevent intrusion of bodily fluids, bodily tissues, and/or insufflation fluid (Honda paragraph [0065], “a front-view type observation window nozzle portion 19 configured to supply fluid toward the front observation lens 12”).
Regarding Claim 13, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further teaches a terminal window (Honda FIG. 3 window/lens 12) designed to reduce optical artifacts, including one or more artifacts from the group consisting of reflection, light leakage within the arthroscope, fouling by bodily fluids and/or bodily tissues (Honda paragraph [0065], “a front-view type observation window nozzle portion 19 configured to supply fluid toward the front observation lens 12”), and fogging.
Regarding Claim 23, Schmieding discloses the features of:
An arthroscope (Schmieding FIG. 1, arthroscope 100), comprising:
a handle (Schmieding FIG. 1, handle/body 5) and an insertion shaft (Schmieding FIG. 1, shaft 20),
the insertion shaft designed for minimally-invasive surgery, the insertion shaft having rigidity and strength for insertion of the camera into joints for arthroscopic surgery (Schmieding paragraph [0027], “arthroscope 100 is designed, dimensioned and configured to be…securely positioned within a knee joint.”).
Schmieding does not explicitly disclose:
the insertion shaft having near its distal end a solid state camera, the insertion shaft having enclosed therein at least one light guide designed to conduct illumination light to the distal end through a space between the camera and the inner surface of the insertion shaft,;
the one or more light guide(s) having a cross-section other than circular, the light guide having a coupling to accept illumination light from a circular-cross-section optical fiber,
Honda is analogous art in the field of endoscopes that teaches:
the insertion shaft (Honda FIG. 1, insertion portion 4) having near its distal end a solid state camera (Honda FIG. 3, image pickup portion 20; Honda paragraph [0065], “image pickup portion 20 such as a CCD”), the insertion shaft having enclosed therein at least one light guide (Honda FIG. 3, rigid circular arc portion 90a, which is part of light guide 90 shown in Honda FIG. 5) designed to conduct illumination light to the distal end through a space between the camera and the inner surface of the insertion shaft (Honda FIG. 3, showing distal end 90s of light guide 90 between image pickup portion 20 and the inner surface of the distal tip 6 of in insertion portion 4 shown in Honda FIG. 1),
the one or more light guide(s) having a cross-section other than circular (Honda FIG. 9, showing arcuate shape of rigid circular arc portion 90a of light guide 90), the lightguide having a coupling (Honda FIG. 9, rigid shape transition portion 90b) to accept illumination light from a circular-cross-section optical fiber (Honda FIG. 9, flexible portion 90c of light guide 90; Honda paragraph [0080], “flexible portion 90c…is configured with a plurality of light guide fibers inserted in an elastic tube.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmieding’s rigid insertion shaft with the optical features taught by Honda’s insertion shaft. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to know methods to yield the predicable result of an endoscope that has greater direct user-control during in situ positioning of the insertion portion.
Schmieding in view of Honda does not explicitly teach at an outer surface of the one or more light guides being longitudinally fluted, the flutes of the outer surface being parallel to each other.
Fang is analogous art in the field of light optics that teaches an outer surface of the one or more light guides being longitudinally fluted, the flutes of the outer surface being parallel to each other (Fang FIG. 5, parallel arc-shaped slots 26 on light-emitting surface 12b of light guide 12).
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 Fang’s longitudinal fluting/ridges/grooves with Honda’s rigid circular arc light guide in the arthroscope taught by Schmieding in view of Honda. 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 light source having luminance uniformity (see Fang paragraph [0032]).
Schmieding in view of Honda and Fang does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of light guides of the one or more light guide(s) form an integral part.
Hatase teaches wherein a plurality of light guides (Hatase FIG. 28, optical fibers 59) of the one or more light guide(s) form an integral part (Hatase FIG. 28, tip portion 15 of endoscope 11 and mold resin 145; Hatase paragraph [0170], “the plurality of optical fibers 59 that constitutes the light guide 57 is allowed to form a fiber bundle by the mold resin 145…The mold resin 145 is molded in the same shape as the half-moon columnar-shaped portion at the position of any one of the four half-moon columnar-shaped portions…the plurality of optical fibers 59 is integrally molded in the half-moon columnar-shaped portion in a state where the optical fibers 59 are arranged in a row and inserted.”).
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 Hatase’s molded integral light guides 57 shown in Hatase FIG. 28 with the system taught by Schmieding in view of Honda and Fang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of a system that has enhanced light-shielding as provided by Hatase’s mold resin (see Hatase paragraph [0171]).
As (1) the combination of the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, as described above; (2) the record shows no evidence of each element taught by the cited prior art performing differently in combination as it does separately (i.e., either alone or in combination the system for focusing performs in a same manner); and (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., nothing in the record supports a conclusion that combining Hatase’s molded light guides with the system taught by Schmieding, Honda¸ and Fang would result of a light guide system having enhanced light-shielding performance that would be unpredictable (see Hatase paragraph [0171]). As such, no additional findings based on the Graham (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 24, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further teaches the light guide(s) in the region of the camera being formed as a flattened region of an optical fiber (Honda FIG. 9, showing rigid circular arc portion 90a as a flattened region of light guide 90).
Regarding Claim 26, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Fang further teaches an outer surface of at least one of the light guide(s) being longitudinally fluted, the flutes of the outer surface being parallel to each other (Fang FIG. 5, parallel arc-shaped slots 26 on light-emitting surface 12b of light guide 12).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmieding et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0204083 – Schmieding”) in view of Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”), Fang et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0285309 – “Fang”), Hatase et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0307872 – “Hatase”), and Zhao (US PGPUB 2013/0299844 – “Zhao”).
Regarding Claim 5, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 4, as described above.
Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase does not explicitly teach a distal surface of the one or more light guides has surface microdomes designed to diffuse emitted light.
Zhao teaches a distal surface of the one or more light guides is has surface microdomes designed to diffuse emitted light (Zhao paragraph [0025], “increasing light extraction efficiency for LEDs by…microdomes…at the surface of the LED structures”).
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 Zhao’s microdome coating on the distal surface of the one or more light guides disclosed by Honda in the arthroscope taught by Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase. 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 arthroscope with a capability of illuminating a wide area of interest by using diffuse light. Zhao is analogous art to the presently-claimed invention. That is, both Zhao and the present invention are directed to controlling light dispersal/diffusion. Zhao controls light dispersal/diffusion using microdomes (Zhao paragraph [0025], “increasing light extraction efficiency for LEDs by…microdomes…at the surface of the LED structures”). The present invention also controls light dispersal/diffusion using microdomes (“a distal surface of the one or more light guides has surface microdomes designed to diffuse emitted light”). Thus, Zhao is analogous art to the present invention as being in the same field of endeavor.
Claims 6-8, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmieding et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0204083 – Schmieding”) in view of Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”), Fang et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0285309 – “Fang”), Hatase et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0307872 – “Hatase”), and LeMire (US Patent 4,121,206 – “LeMire”).
Regarding Claim 6, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further teaches the guide(s) in the region of the camera being formed as a flattened region of an optical fiber (Honda FIG. 9, showing rigid circular arc portion 90a as a flattened region of light guide 90), the flattened region being shaped to lie between the arthroscope camera and an inner surface of an outer wall of the arthroscope insertion shaft (Honda FIG. 3, showing flattened distal end 90s of rigid circular arc portion 90a between image pickup portion 20 and the inner surface of the distal tip 6 of in insertion portion 4 shown in Honda FIG. 1), and shaped to conduct illumination light to a distal end of the arthroscope insertion shaft for illumination of a surgical cavity to be viewed by the camera (Honda paragraph [0002], “The present invention relates to an illumination unit for endoscope provided on a distal end side of an insertion portion of an endoscope”).
Schmieding discloses the insertion shaft being no more than 6mm in diameter (Schmieding paragraph [0033], “second member 40…having an outer diameter of about 5mm”).
Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase does not explicitly teach the feature of the flattened region being formed by heating a region of a plastic optical fiber, and squeezing the heated region in a polished mold.
LeMire is analogous art in the field of illumination optics that teaches the flattened region being formed by heating a region of a plastic optical fiber, and squeezing the heated region in a polished mold (LeMire FIG. 5, showing fiber optic bundles being pressed into a flattened shape 59 by a die 57; LeMire col. 6, lines 8-13, “FIG. 5 is a perspective view illustrating a preferred means and method for forming the ends of individual fiber light guides into bundles of a predetermined shape through heat-fusion involving the use of a mold which compresses the ends of the light-guiding optic fiber bundles into any desired overall shape”).
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 LeMire’s molded fiber optic guides with the arthroscope described by Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase. 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 arthroscope having structural coherence among fiber ends for strength (see LeMire col. 6, lines 30-33).
Regarding Claim 7, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase does not explicitly teach the feature of the light guide(s) in the region of the camera being formed by heating a region of a plastic optical fiber, and squeezing the heated region in a polished mold.
LeMire teaches the light guide(s) in the region of the camera being formed by heating a region of a plastic optical fiber, and squeezing the heated region in a polished mold (LeMire FIG. 5, showing fiber optic bundles being pressed into a flattened shape 59 by a die 57; LeMire col. 6, lines 8-13, “FIG. 5 is a perspective view illustrating a preferred means and method for forming the ends of individual fiber light guides into bundles of a predetermined shape through heat-fusion involving the use of a mold which compresses the ends of the light-guiding optic fiber bundles into any desired overall shape”).
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 LeMire’s molded fiber optic guides with the arthroscope described by Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase. 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 arthroscope having structural coherence among fiber ends for strength (see LeMire col. 6, lines 30-33).
Regarding Claim 8, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase, and LeMire teaches the features of Claim 7, as described above.
Fang further teaches at least one of an inner and outer surface of the squeezed region being longitudinally fluted, the flutes of a surface being parallel to each other (Fang FIG. 5, parallel arc-shaped slots 26 on light guide 12).
Regarding Claim 22, Schmieding discloses:
An arthroscope (Schmieding FIG. 1, arthroscope 100), comprising:
a handle (Schmieding FIG. 1, handle/body 5) and an insertion shaft (Schmieding FIG. 1, shaft 20),
the insertion shaft (Schmieding FIG. 1, second member 40 of arthroscope 100) having an outer diameter of no more than 6mm (Schmieding paragraph [0033], “second member 40…having an outer diameter of about 5mm”), the insertion shaft having rigidity and strength for insertion of the camera into joints for arthroscopic surgery (Schmieding paragraph [0027], “arthroscope 100 is designed, dimensioned and configured to be…securely positioned within a knee joint.”).
Schmieding does not explicitly disclose:
the insertion shaft having near its distal end a solid state camera, the insertion shaft having enclosed therein at least one light guide designed to conduct illumination light to the distal end through a space between the camera and the inner surface of the insertion shaft,
the light guide(s) having a cross-section other than circular shaped to lie between an arthroscope camera and an inner surface of an outer wall of an arthroscope shaft and to conduct illumination light though the space between the camera and inner surface of the insertion haft to a distal end of the arthroscope insertion shaft for illumination of a surgical cavity to be viewed by the camera,
a length of plastic fiber having a circular cross-section with a core and wall with indices of refraction to conduct light by total internal reflection, the light guide formed by heating a region of a plastic optical fiber, and flattening the heated region in a polished mold.
Honda is analogous art in the field of endoscopes that teaches:
the insertion shaft (Honda FIG. 1, insertion portion 4) having near its distal end a solid state camera (Honda FIG. 3, image pickup portion 20; Honda paragraph [0065], “image pickup portion 20 such as a CCD”), the insertion shaft having enclosed therein at least one light guide (Honda FIG. 3, rigid circular arc portion 90a, which is part of light guide 90 shown in Honda FIG. 5) designed to conduct illumination light to the distal end through a space between the camera and the inner surface of the insertion shaft (Honda FIG. 3, showing distal end 90s of light guide 90 between image pickup portion 20 and the inner surface of the distal tip 6 of in insertion portion 4 shown in Honda FIG. 1),
the light guide(s) having a cross-section other than circular (Honda FIG. 9, showing arcuate shape of rigid circular arc portion 90a of light guide 90) shaped to lie between an arthroscope camera and an inner surface of an outer wall of an arthroscope shaft (Honda FIG. 3, showing distal end 90s of rigid circular arc portion 90a between image pickup portion 20 and the inner surface of the distal tip 6 of in insertion portion 4 shown in Honda FIG. 1) and to conduct illumination light though the space between the camera and inner surface of the insertion haft to a distal end of the arthroscope insertion shaft for illumination of a surgical cavity to be viewed by the camera (Honda paragraph [0002], “The present invention relates to an illumination unit for endoscope provided on a distal end side of an insertion portion of an endoscope”).
a length of plastic fiber having a circular cross-section with a core and wall with indices of refraction to conduct light by total internal reflection (Honda FIG. 9, light guide 90c; Honda paragraph [0080], “flexible portion 90c is…configured with a plurality of light guide fibers inserted in an elastic tube”). Examiner notes that the structure and function of plastic fiber optics is well known to a person having ordinary skill in the art of light guides, as defined in the attached definition from the entry of fiber optics (“thin transparent fibers of glass or plastic that are enclosed by material of a lower refractive index and that transmit light throughout their length by internal reflections; also :a bundle of such fibers used in an instrument (as for viewing body cavities”) in the April 1, 2016 edition of Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. As such, the plastic fiber disclosed by Honda has a core (central axis) and wall (plastic) cover that transmit/reflect light through the fiber optics. Examiner further notes that the terms “core” and “wall” are never defined in Claim 22, nor is the term “indices of refraction” given any meaning other than the normal definition of a ratio of the speed of radiation (as light) in one medium to that in another medium (see attached entry for refractive index in the April 15, 2026 Merriam-Websters online dictionary), which all physical objects have. As such, the plastic fiber optics disclosed by Honda by definition has a core (central axis) and wall (plastic) cover that transmit/reflect light through the fiber optics.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Honda’s optical features in Schmieding’s rigid shaft. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of an endoscope that has greater direct user-control during in situ positioning of the insertion portion.
Schmieding in view of Honda does not explicitly teach at least one surface of the one or more light guide(s) being longitudinally fluted, the flutes of a surface being parallel to each other.
Fang is analogous art in the field of light optics that teaches at least one surface of the one or more light guide(s) (Fang FIG. 5, light guide 12) being longitudinally fluted (Fang FIG. 5, arc-shaped slots 26 cut on the light-emitting surface 12b), the flutes of a surface being parallel to each other (Fang FIG. 5, showing Honda FIG. 9, showing arc-shaped slots 26 parallel to each other).
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 Fang’s longitudinal fluting/ridges/grooves with Honda’s rigid circular arc light guide in the arthroscope taught by Schmieding in view of Honda. 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 light source having luminance uniformity (see Fang paragraph [0032]).
Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang does not explicitly teach the product by process feature of light guide formed by heating a region of a plastic optical fiber, and flattening the heated region in a polished mold. MPEP 2113. However, Honda discloses in FIG.5 light guides 90 and 90’, which are configured as “one bundle obtained by bundling a plurality of fibers” (see Honda paragraph [0069]). As such, this plurality of fibers that constitute the flattened region that makes up the light guide(s) in Honda disclose the flattened region of the light guide(s). The present specification fails to indicate how a flattened light guide that is created by heating and squeezing, as presently claimed, results in a different flattened light guide than Honda’s light guide 90a that is created using Honda’s arrangement hole 50h shown in Honda Fig. 10, (Honda paragraph [0098], “when the circular arc portion 90a is provided being fitted in the arrangement hole 50h, the light guide 90 is formed in such a shape”). Rather, paragraph [0123] of the present specification merely states that “light guide 450 may be formed by deforming fiber 430 itself. This may effect a higher-throughput coupling from fiber 430 to light guide 450 than butt-coupling”.
Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang does not explicitly teach the light guide formed by heating a region of a plastic optical fiber, and flattening the heated region in a polished mold.
LeMire teaches the light guide formed by heating a region of a plastic optical fiber, and flattening the heated region in a polished mold (LeMire FIG. 5, showing fiber optic bundles being pressed into a flattened shape 59 by a die 57; LeMire col. 6, lines 8-13, “FIG. 5 is a perspective view illustrating a preferred means and method for forming the ends of individual fiber light guides into bundles of a predetermined shape through heat-fusion involving the use of a mold which compresses the ends of the light-guiding optic fiber bundles into any desired overall shape”).
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 LeMire’s molded fiber optic guides with the arthroscope described by Schmieding in view of Honda and Fang. 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 arthroscope having structural coherence among fiber ends for strength (see LeMire col. 6, lines 30-33).
Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and LeMire does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of light guides of the one or more light guide(s) form an integral part.
Hatase teaches wherein a plurality of light guides (Hatase FIG. 28, optical fibers 59) of the one or more light guide(s) form an integral part (Hatase FIG. 28, tip portion 15 of endoscope 11 and mold resin 145; Hatase paragraph [0170], “the plurality of optical fibers 59 that constitutes the light guide 57 is allowed to form a fiber bundle by the mold resin 145…The mold resin 145 is molded in the same shape as the half-moon columnar-shaped portion at the position of any one of the four half-moon columnar-shaped portions…the plurality of optical fibers 59 is integrally molded in the half-moon columnar-shaped portion in a state where the optical fibers 59 are arranged in a row and inserted.”).
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 Hatase’s molded integral light guides 57 shown in Hatase FIG. 28 with the system taught by Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and LeMire. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of a system that has enhanced light-shielding as provided by Hatase’s mold resin (see Hatase paragraph [0171]).
As (1) the combination of the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, as described above; (2) the record shows no evidence of each element taught by the cited prior art performing differently in combination as it does separately (i.e., either alone or in combination the system for focusing performs in a same manner); and (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., nothing in the record supports a conclusion that combining Hatase’s molded light guides with the system taught by Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and LeMire to produce the result of a light guide system having enhanced light-shielding performance would be unpredictable(see Hatase paragraph [0171]). As such, no additional findings based on the Graham (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 25, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 24, as described above.
Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase does not explicitly teach the flattened region being formed by heating a region of a plastic optical fiber, and squeezing the heated region in a polished mold.
LeMire teaches the flattened region being formed by heating a region of a plastic optical fiber, and squeezing the heated region in a polished mold (LeMire FIG. 5, showing fiber optic bundles being pressed into a flattened shape 59 by a die 57; LeMire col. 6, lines 8-13, “FIG. 5 is a perspective view illustrating a preferred means and method for forming the ends of individual fiber light guides into bundles of a predetermined shape through heat-fusion involving the use of a mold which compresses the ends of the light-guiding optic fiber bundles into any desired overall shape”).
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 LeMire’s molded fiber optic guides with the arthroscope described by Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase. 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 arthroscope having structural coherence among fiber ends for strength (see LeMire col. 6, lines 30-33).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmieding et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0204083 – Schmieding”) in view of Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”), Fang et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0285309 – “Fang”), Hatase et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0307872 – “Hatase”), and Ogawa (US PGPUB 2018/0098688 – “Ogawa”).
Regarding Claim 9, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further teaches at least some component parts for mounting near the distal end including features at joints, wherein the component parts for mounting near the distal end include a front chassis and a rear chassis (Honda FIG. 3, showing front chassis lens barrel 210 joined to rear chassis device barrel 220).
Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase does not explicitly teach the use of poka-yoke design principles to ensure correct assembly.
Ogawa teaches poka-yoke design principles to ensure correct assembly (Ogawa FIG. 3, pin 54 ; Ogawa FIG. 5, step portion 63; Ogawa paragraph [0031], “step portion 63 having a stepped shape along the direction of the optical axis C is formed by a part of the bonding surface of the first lens 61 and the notch surface 62a of the second lens 62. In the embodiment, the pin 54 and the step portion 63 serve as an assembly error prevention unit”).
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 Ogawa’s assembly error prevention (poka-yoke) unit with the arthroscope taught by Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase. 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 arthroscope in which assembly mistakes are reduced, if not eliminated. Examiner notes that “poka-yoke” is described in paragraph [0130] of the present specification as a manufacturing design of parts such that “the configuration of the parts allows assembly only one way”. Ogawa explicitly describes the feature.
Regarding Claim 10, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further teaches at least some component parts of a lens assembly for mounting near the distal end, wherein the component parts of the lens assembly for mounting near the distal end include an end cap (Honda FIG. 2, projecting portion 11 and front observation lens 12), a first lens (Honda FIG. 3, distal lens in lens group 14), a spacer/iris (Honda FIG. 3, middle lens in lens group 14), and a second lens (Honda FIG. 3, proximal lens in lens group 14).
Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase does not explicitly teach shapes embodying poka-yoke design principles to ensure correct assembly.
Ogawa teaches shapes embodying poka-yoke design principles to ensure correct assembly (Ogawa FIG. 3, pin 54 ; Ogawa FIG. 5, step portion 63; Ogawa paragraph [0031], “step portion 63 having a stepped shape along the direction of the optical axis C is formed by a part of the bonding surface of the first lens 61 and the notch surface 62a of the second lens 62. In the embodiment, the pin 54 and the step portion 63 serve as an assembly error prevention unit”).
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 Ogawa’s assembly error prevention (poka-yoke) unit with the arthroscope taught by Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase. 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 arthroscope in which assembly mistakes are reduced, if not eliminated. Examiner notes that “poka-yoke” is described in paragraph [0130] of the present specification as a manufacturing design of parts such that “the configuration of the parts allows assembly only one way”. Ogawa explicitly describes the feature.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Schmieding et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0204083 – Schmieding”) in view of Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”), Fang et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0285309 – “Fang”), Hatase et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0307872 – “Hatase”), Scott et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0261961 – “Scott”), and Kucharski et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0035277 – “Kucharski”).
Regarding Claim 14, Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase does not explicitly teach the light guide(s) in the region of the camera include at least nine optical fibers of substantially continuous diameter from a light source, the light fibers being no more than 0.5mm diameter, and arrayed to subtend at least 250° of the circumference of the distal end of the arthroscope.
Scott teaches the light guide(s) in the region of the camera include at least nine optical fibers (Scott FIG. 2L, optical fibers 312 in camera module 200C) of substantially continuous diameter from a light source (Scott FIG. 1, illuminator 116), and arrayed to subtend at least 250° of the circumference of the distal end of the arthroscope (Scott FIG. 2L, showing four sets of optical fibers 312 subtending 360° of the distal end of camera module 200C at the distal end of the instrument shaft 106 shown in Scott FIG. 1).
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 Scott’s arrangement of optical fibers with the arthroscope taught by Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, and Hatase. 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 arthroscope having uniform lighting of an endoscopic surgical site.
Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, Hatase, and Scott does not explicitly teach the light fibers being no more than 0.5mm diameter.
Kucharski teaches the light fibers (Kucharski FIG. 2A, optical illumination fibers 25) being no more than 0.5mm diameter (Kucharski paragraph [0113], “optical illumination fibers 25 (outer diameter of 0.25 mm”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Kucharski’s 0.25mm diameter light fibers in the arthroscope taught by Schmieding in view of Honda, Fang, Hatase, and Scott. 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 light source for an arthroscope that is flexible yet has redundant light fibers to accommodate for broken light fibers during an endoscopic operation.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”) in view of LeMire (US Patent 4,121,206 – “LeMire”), Schmieding et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0204083 – Schmieding”), and Hatase et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0307872 – “Hatase”).
Regarding Claim 15, Honda discloses:
A light conduction fiber (Honda FIG. 3, light guides 90), comprising:
a length of plastic fiber having a circular cross-section with a core and wall with indices of refraction to conduct light by total internal reflection (Honda paragraph [0080], “flexible portion 90c is…configured with a plurality of light guide fibers inserted in an elastic tube”).
a flattened region (Honda FIG. 9, showing rigid circular arc portion 90a as a flattened region of light guide 90) shaped to lie between an arthroscope camera and an inner surface of an outer wall of an arthroscope insertion shaft (Honda FIG. 3, showing flattened distal end 90s of rigid circular arc portion 90a between image pickup portion 20 and the inner surface of the distal tip 6 of in insertion portion 4 shown in Honda FIG. 1), the flattened region being shaped to conduct illumination light though the space between the camera and inner surface of the arthroscope insertion shaft wall to a distal end of the arthroscope insertion shaft for illumination of a surgical cavity to be viewed by the camera (Honda paragraph [0002], “The present invention relates to an illumination unit for endoscope provided on a distal end side of an insertion portion of an endoscope”);
the insertion shaft (Honda FIG. 1, insertion portion 4) having near its distal end a solid state camera (Honda FIG. 3, image pickup portion 20; Honda paragraph [0065], “image pickup portion 20 such as a CCD”), the insertion shaft having enclosed therein the light conduction fiber (Honda FIG. 3, rigid circular arc portion 90a, which is part of light guide 90 shown in Honda FIG. 5); and
the one or more light guide(s) having a cross-section other than circular (Honda FIG. 9, showing arcuate shape of rigid circular arc portion 90a of light guide 90), the lightguide having a coupling (Honda FIG. 9, rigid shape transition portion 90b) to accept illumination light from a circular-cross-section optical fiber (Honda FIG. 9, flexible portion 90c of light guide 90; Honda paragraph [0080], “flexible portion 90c…is configured with a plurality of light guide fibers inserted in an elastic tube.”).
Honda does not explicitly disclose wherein the flattened region formed by heating a region of the plastic optical fiber, and squeezing the heated region in a polished mold.
LeMire teaches wherein the flattened region formed by heating a region of the plastic optical fiber, and squeezing the heated region in a polished mold (LeMire FIG. 5, showing fiber optic bundles being pressed into a flattened shape 59 by a die 57; LeMire col. 6, lines 8-13, “FIG. 5 is a perspective view illustrating a preferred means and method for forming the ends of individual fiber light guides into bundles of a predetermined shape through heat-fusion involving the use of a mold which compresses the ends of the light-guiding optic fiber bundles into any desired overall shape”).
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 LeMire’s molded fiber optic guides with the light conduction fiber described by Honda. 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 light conduction fiber having structural coherence among fiber ends for strength (see LeMire col. 6, lines 30-33).
Honda in view of LeMire does not explicitly teach an arthroscope handle and arthroscope insertion shaft, the insertion shaft having an outer diameter of no more than 6mm, and the insertion shaft having rigidity and strength for insertion of the camera into joints for arthroscopic surgery.
Schmieding is analogous art in the field of endoscopic optics that teaches an arthroscope handle (Schmieding FIG. 1, handle/body 5) and arthroscope insertion shaft (Schmieding FIG. 1, shaft 20), the insertion shaft having an outer diameter of no more than 6mm (Schmieding paragraph [0033], “second member 40…having an outer diameter of about 5mm”), and the insertion shaft having rigidity and strength for insertion of the camera into joints for arthroscopic surgery (Schmieding paragraph [0027], “arthroscope 100 is designed, dimensioned and configured to be…securely positioned within a knee joint.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optics taught by Honda in view of LeMire in Schmieding’s rigid shaft. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to know method to yield the predictable result of an endoscope that has greater direct user-control during in situ positioning of the insertion portion, as afforded by a rigid arthroscope.
Honda in view of LeMire and Schmieding does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of light guides of the one or more light guide(s) form an integral part.
Hatase teaches wherein a plurality of light guides (Hatase FIG. 28, optical fibers 59) of the one or more light guide(s) form an integral part (Hatase FIG. 28, tip portion 15 of endoscope 11 and mold resin 145; Hatase paragraph [0170], “the plurality of optical fibers 59 that constitutes the light guide 57 is allowed to form a fiber bundle by the mold resin 145…The mold resin 145 is molded in the same shape as the half-moon columnar-shaped portion at the position of any one of the four half-moon columnar-shaped portions…the plurality of optical fibers 59 is integrally molded in the half-moon columnar-shaped portion in a state where the optical fibers 59 are arranged in a row and inserted.”).
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 Hatase’s molded integral light guides 57 shown in Hatase FIG. 28 with the system taught by Honda in view of LeMire and Schmieding. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of a system that has enhanced light-shielding as provided by Hatase’s mold resin (see Hatase paragraph [0171]).
As (1) the combination of the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, as described above; (2) the record shows no evidence of each element taught by the cited prior art performing differently in combination as it does separately (i.e., either alone or in combination the system for focusing performs in a same manner); and (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., nothing in the record supports a conclusion that combining Hatase’s molded light guides with the system taught by Honda in view of LeMire and Schmieding would result in a light guide system having enhanced light-shielding performance that would be unpredictable (see Hatase paragraph [0171]). As such, no additional findings based on the Graham (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Claims 17-19, 21, and 27 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”) in view of LeMire (US Patent 4,121,206 – “LeMire”), Schmieding et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0204083 – Schmieding”), Hatase et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0307872 – “Hatase”), and Fang et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0285309 – “Fang”).
Regarding Claim 17, Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 15, as described above.
Honda further discloses a distal end of the flattened region (Honda FIG. 9, showing rigid circular arc portion 90a as a flattened region of light guide 90).
Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, and Hatase does not explicitly teach the distal end of the light guide having a surface designed to diffuse light into the surgical cavity.
Fang teaches the distal end of the light guide having a surface designed to diffuse light into the surgical cavity (Fang paragraph [0011], “arc-shaped longitudinal structures on the light-emitting surface further diffuse the light rays to allow for a more uniform surface emission”).
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 Fang’s arc-shaped longitudinal fluting/ridges/grooves with Honda’s rigid circular arc light guide in the light conduction fiber taught by Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, and Hatase. 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 light source having luminance uniformity (see Fang paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 18, Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 15, as described above.
Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, and Hatase does not explicitly teach at least one of an inner and outer surface of the one or more light guides are longitudinally fluted, the flutes of a surface being parallel to each other.
Fang teaches at least one of an inner and outer surface of the one or more light guides (Fang FIG. 5, light guide 12) are longitudinally fluted (Fang FIG. 5, arc-shaped slots 26 cut on the light-emitting surface 12b), the flutes of a surface being parallel to each other (Fang FIG. 5, showing Honda FIG. 9, showing arc-shaped slots 26 parallel to each other).
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 Fang’s longitudinal fluting/ridges/grooves with Honda’s rigid circular arc light guide in the light conduction fiber taught by Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, and Hatase. 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 light conduction fiber having luminance uniformity (see Fang paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 19, Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 15, as described above.
Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, and Hatase does not explicitly teach a distal surface of the one or more light guides is designed to diffuse emitted light.
Fang teaches a distal surface of the one or more light guides (Fang FIG. 5, light guide 12) is designed to diffuse emitted light (Fang paragraph [0011], “arc-shaped longitudinal structures on the light-emitting surface further diffuse the light rays to allow for a more uniform surface emission”).
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 Fang’s longitudinal fluting/ridges/grooves with Honda’s rigid circular arc light guide in the light conduction fiber taught by Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, and Hatase. 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 light source having luminance uniformity (see Fang paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 21, Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 15, as described above.
Although Honda teaches at least one of an inner and outer surface of the flattened region (Honda FIG. 3, showing flattened distal end 90s of light guide 90), Honda in view of Schmieding and LeMire does not explicitly at least one of an inner and outer surface of a light guide being longitudinally fluted, the flutes of a surface being parallel to each other.
Fang teaches at least one of an inner and outer surface of a light guide (Fang FIG. 5, light guide 12) being longitudinally fluted (Fang FIG. 5, arc-shaped slots 26 cut on the light-emitting surface 12b), the flutes of a surface being parallel to each other (Fang FIG. 5, showing Honda FIG. 9, showing arc-shaped slots 26 parallel to each other).
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 Fang’s longitudinal fluting/ridges/grooves with Honda’s rigid circular arc light guide in the light conduction fiber taught by Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, and Hatase. 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 light source having luminance uniformity (see Fang paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 27, Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, and Hatase teaches the features of Claim 18, as described above.
Fang teaches an outer surface of at least one of the light guide(s) (Fang FIG. 5, light guide 12) being longitudinally fluted (Fang FIG. 5, arc-shaped slots 26 cut on the light-emitting surface 12b), the flutes of a surface being parallel to each other (Fang FIG. 5, showing Honda FIG. 9, showing arc-shaped slots 26 parallel to each other).
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 Fang’s longitudinal fluting/ridges/grooves with Honda’s rigid circular arc light guide in the light conduction fiber taught by Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, and Hatase. 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 light source having luminance uniformity (see Fang paragraph [0032]).
Claim 20 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”) in view of LeMire (US Patent 4,121,206 – “LeMire”), Schmieding et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0204083 – Schmieding”), Hatase et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0307872 – “Hatase”), Fang et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0285309 – “Fang”),and Zhao (US PGPUB 2013/0299844 – “Zhao”).
Regarding Claim 20, Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, Hatase, and Fang teaches the features of Claim 19, as described above.
Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, Hatase, and Fang does not explicitly teach a distal surface of the one or more light guides has surface microdomes designed to diffuse emitted light.
Zhao teaches a distal surface of the one or more light guides is has surface microdomes designed to diffuse emitted light (Zhao paragraph [0025], “increasing light extraction efficiency for LEDs by…microdomes…at the surface of the LED structures”).
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 Zhao’s microdome coating on the distal surface of the one or more light guides disclosed by Honda in the light conduction fiber taught by Honda in view of LeMire, Schmieding, Hatase, and Fang. 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 light conduction fiber with a capability of illuminating a wide area of interest by using diffuse light.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed August 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-15 and 17-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendments to Claims 1, 15, and 22-23. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hatase et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0307872 – “Hatase”). That is, the arguments presented were directed to the newly-added feature in Claims 1, 15, and 22-23 of “wherein a plurality of light guides of the one or more light guide(s) form an integral part”. As described above, this feature plus Examiner’s rationale for combining this feature (as found in newly-cited Hatase) with those previously found in Claims 1, 15, and 22-23 are presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include but are not limited to:
Gatto (US PGPUB 2003/0187427 – “Gatto”), which teaches in Gatto FIG. 1, a guide tube 17 that has light fibers 22 molded in the tube material that forms guide tube 17 (see Gatto paragraph [0056]); and
Grant et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0221749 – “Grant”), which teaches in Grant FIG. 47 a flexible optical fiber 1000 having multiple optical fibers 364 that are fused/molded together to form the flexible optical fiber bundle that can be mechanically manipulated to form a desired shape, such as shown in Grant FIG. 48 (see Grant paragraph [0261]).
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
