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 .
This Office Action is in response to the GRANTED January 29, 2026 Petition Decision, which ordered: 1) the previously withdrawn Claims 15-21 and 27 are reinstated; 2) the finality of the October 27, 2025 Final Office Action is withdrawn (and thus reclassified as non-final); 3) the response (including claims amendments) file on December 29, 2025 is entered; and 4) the examiner will issue a new Office Action based on Applicant’s December 29, 2025 response. The present non-final Office Action is in compliance with the January 29, 2026 Petition Decision.
As such, and therefore, the Restriction Requirement dated 01/31/25 has now been rescinded / withdrawn and all the claims are therefore examined. Hence, Claims 15-21 and 27 are now examined for patentability, and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see below).
Claims 1-27 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1-4, 11-13, 22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”) in view of Schmieding et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0204083 – Schmieding”) and Fang et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0285309 – “Fang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Honda discloses:
An arthroscope (Honda FIG. 1, endoscope 2), comprising:
a handle (Honda FIG. 1, operation portion 3) and an insertion shaft (Honda FIG. 1, insertion portion 4), the insertion shaft 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.”).
Honda does not explicitly disclose the insertion shaft having an outer diameter of no more than 6mm, the insertion shaft having rigidity and strength for insertion of the camera into joints for arthroscopic surgery
Schmieding teaches 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.”).
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 Honda’s flexible insertion shaft with rigidity taught by Schmieding’s rigid 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.
Honda in view of Schmieding does not explicitly teach at least one surface of the one or more light guide(s) being longitudinally fluted.
Fang 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 Honda in view of Schmieding. 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 2, Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further discloses 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, Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further discloses 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, Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang teach 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, Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further discloses 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, Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further discloses 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, Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further discloses 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 22, Honda discloses:
An arthroscope (Honda FIG. 1, endoscope 2), comprising:
a handle (Honda FIG. 1, operation portion 3) and an insertion shaft (Honda FIG. 1, insertion portion 4), the insertion shaft 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”), and
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.
Honda does not explicitly disclose, the insertion shaft having an outer diameter of no more than 6mm, the insertion shaft having rigidity and strength for insertion of the camera into joints for arthroscopic surgery.
Schmieding teaches 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.”).
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 Schmieding’s shaft rigidity in Honda’s flexible insertion 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.
Honda in view of Schmieding 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 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 Honda in view of Schmieding. 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”.
Regarding Claim 24, Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further discloses 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, Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang teach 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 Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”) in view of Schmieding et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0204083 – Schmieding”), Fang et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0285309 – “Fang”), and Zhao (US PGPUB 2013/0299844 – “Zhao”).
Regarding Claim 5, Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang teach the features of Claim 4, as described above.
Honda in view of Schmieding 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 arthroscope taught by Honda in view of Schmieding 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 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, 17-19, 21, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”) in view of Schmieding et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0204083 – Schmieding”), Fang et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0285309 – “Fang”), and LeMire (US Patent 4,121,206 – “LeMire”).
Regarding Claim 6, Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further discloses 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 teaches the insertion shaft being no more than 6mm in diameter (Schmieding paragraph [0033], “second member 40…having an outer diameter of about 5mm”).
Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang 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 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 Honda in view of Schmieding 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).
Regarding Claim 7, Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang 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 Honda in view of Schmieding 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).
Regarding Claim 8, Honda in view of Schmieding, Fang, ad LeMire teach 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 17, Honda in view of Schmieding and LeMire 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 Schmieding and LeMire 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 Schmieding 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 the predictable result of an endoscopic light source having luminance uniformity (see Fang paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 18, Honda in view of Schmieding and LeMire teaches the features of Claim 15, as described above.
Honda in view of Schmieding and LeMire 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 Schmieding 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 the predictable result of a light conduction fiber having luminance uniformity (see Fang paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 19, Honda in view of Schmieding and LeMire teaches the features of Claim 15, as described above.
Honda in view of Schmieding and LeMire 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 Schmieding 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 the predictable result of an endoscopic light source having luminance uniformity (see Fang paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 21, Honda in view of Schmieding and LeMire 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 Schmieding 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 the predictable result of an endoscopic light source having luminance uniformity (see Fang paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 25, Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang teach the features of Claim 24, as described above.
Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang 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 Honda in view of Schmieding 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).
Regarding Claim 27, Honda in view of Schmieding and LeMire teaches the features of Claim 18, as described above.
Honda in view of Schmieding and LeMire does not explicitly teach 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 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 Schmieding 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 the predictable result of an endoscopic light source having luminance uniformity (see Fang paragraph [0032]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”) in view of Schmieding et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0204083 – Schmieding”), Fang et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0285309 – “Fang”), and Ogawa (US PGPUB 2018/0098688 – “Ogawa”).
Regarding Claim 9, Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further discloses 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).
Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang does not explicitly teach 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 Honda in view of Schmieding 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 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, Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda further discloses 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).
Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang 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 Honda in view of Schmieding 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 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 Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”) in view of Schmieding et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0204083 – Schmieding”), Fang et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0285309 – “Fang”), Scott et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0261961 – “Scott”), and Kucharski et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0035277 – “Kucharski”).
Regarding Claim 14, Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Honda in view of Schmieding and Fang 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 Honda in view of Schmieding 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 uniform lighting of an endoscopic surgical site.
Honda in view of Schmieding, Fang, 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 Honda in view of Schmieding, Fang, 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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”) in view of Schmieding et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0204083 – Schmieding”) and LeMire (US Patent 4,121,206 – “LeMire”).
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”).
Honda does not explicitly disclose the insertion shaft being no more than 6mm in diameter.
Schmieding teaches the insertion shaft being no more than 6mm in diameter (Schmieding paragraph [0033], “second member 40…having an outer diameter of about 5mm”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Honda’s flexible insertion shaft with Schmieding’s rigid insertion 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.
Honda in view of Schmieding does not explicitly teach the flattened region formed by heating a region of the plastic optical fiber, and squeezing the heated region in a polished mold.
LeMire teaches 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 in view of Schmieding. 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).
Regarding Claim 16, Honda in view of Schmieding and LeMire teaches the features of Claim 15, as described above.
Honda further discloses:
an arthroscope handle (Honda FIG. 1, operation portion 3) and arthroscope insertion shaft (Honda FIG. 1, insertion portion 4), the insertion shaft 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 arranged to conduct illumination light to the distal end (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 flattened region being dimensioned to conduct illumination light from a light fiber 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).
Schmieding further teaches 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”), 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.”).
Claim 20 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”) in view of Schmieding et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0204083 – Schmieding”), LeMire (US Patent 4,121,206 – “LeMire”), Fang et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0285309 – “Fang”), and Zhao (US PGPUB 2013/0299844 – “Zhao”).
Regarding Claim 20, Honda in view of Schmieding, LeMire, and Fang teaches the features of Claim 19, as described above.
Honda in view of Schmieding, LeMire, 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 Schmieding, LeMire, 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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US PGPUB 2020/0174174 – “Honda”) in view of Fang et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0285309 – “Fang”).
Regarding Claim 23, Honda discloses:
An arthroscope (Honda FIG. 1, endoscope 2), comprising:
a handle (Honda FIG. 1, operation portion 3) and an insertion shaft (Honda FIG. 1, insertion portion 4), the insertion shaft 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 insertion shaft designed for minimally-invasive surgery (Honda paragraph [0035], “endoscope 2 is provided with an insertion portion 4 to be inserted into a subject”);
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 light guide 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 an outer surface of the one or more light guides being longitudinally fluted, and the flutes of the outer surface being parallel to each other.
Fang teaches an outer 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 disclosed 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 an endoscopic light source having luminance uniformity (see Fang paragraph [0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the objection to the drawings, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendments to the claims. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 9-11, 14, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendments to the claims. The rejection of Claims 9-11, 14, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 9-11 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the present amendments to the claims. The rejection of Claims 9-11 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-12, filed December 29, 2025 regarding the rejection of Claims 1, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that if Schmieding’s rigid insertion shaft is substituted for Honda’s flexible insertion shaft, then the resulting shaft would not have all of the claimed elements that are disclosed by Schmieding. As described above in the rejection of Claim 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 modify Honda’s flexible insertion shaft with rigidity taught by Schmieding’s rigid 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. That is, the combination of Honda and Schmieding does not completely replace Honda’s flexible insertion shaft with Schmieding’s rigid insertion shaft. Rather, just the rigidity of Schmieding’s rigid insertion shaft is incorporated into Honda’s flexible insertion shaft.
Applicant then continues by arguing that if Honda’s flexible insertion shaft were made rigid, then it could not be used for its intended purpose. Applicant’s reasoning fails for the following reason. First, Honda actually has rigid portions in the insertion portion 4 shown in FIG. 1 (e.g., the rigid light guide portion 90a shown in Honda FIG. 9). Thus, Honda has no prohibition from any component of the insertion portion being rigid, and including other rigid portions would not change the intended purpose of Honda. Second, Honda never suggests that the endoscope described by Honda is used only for tortuous pathways. That is, nothing in Honda prevents it from being used in a linear manner (e.g., in shallow rectal examinations). Applicant’s assertion that “flexible scopes are used for non-straight lumens inside a human body, such as the esophagus, colon, and intestine”, and nowhere else, is conclusory and unsupported. The motivation to combine Honda and Schmieding is clearly identified above. (“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 Honda’s flexible insertion shaft with rigidity taught by Schmieding’s rigid insertion 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.”)
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues that the rejection of Claim 22 is improper because Honda does not explicitly disclose that fiber optics have a core and a wall with indices of refraction. As described above in the rejection of Claim 22, 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 given any alternative definitions, beyond what is widely used in the art, in Claim 22 or in the present specification, nor is the term “indices of refraction” given any meaning or usage 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.
Examiner is unable to identify any arguments related to the rejection of Claim 23 in the December 29, 2025.
As such, the rejections of Claims 1, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12-13, filed regarding the rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant asserts that Zhao is non-analogous art for the present invention, since the present invention is directed to “endoscope, laparoscopes, arthroscopes, colonoscopes, and similar surgical devices”, and Zhao is directed to increased light extraction efficiency in light emitting diodes. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s narrow definition non-analogous art. Both Zhao and the present invention described in Claim 5 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. Even if Zhao did not meet the standard for being in the same field of endeavor, it would still be analogous art using the “reasonably pertinent” test described in MPEP 2141.01(a)(I). Specifically, the problem solved in Claim 5 of the present invention is the same as the problem solved in Zhao. Both solve the problem of how to diffuse emitted light (Claim 5 – “designed to diffuse emitted light”; Zhao FIG. 4, showing light being diffused from an UV LED using microspheres).
As such, the rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ogawa (US PGPUB 2018/0098688 – “Ogawa”), as described above. That is, 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 Honda in view of Schmieding 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 in which assembly mistakes are reduced, if not eliminated. Applicant argues that the term “poka-yoke” or any variation thereof is never used in previously-cited Kwan (US PGPUB 2013/0012773). 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. There is nothing specifically defined in the specification, or in normal usage of the term “poka-yoke” that is different from the definition described in the present specification.
As such, the rejections of Claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
02/23/26