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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 1, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the housing claimed in Claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Furthermore, the feature of a coherent-light source inside the coherent-light coupling device claimed in Claim 34 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
See Response to Amendments for a detailed reason for the objections to the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. More specifically, the structure of a housing is unclear. The figures to not depict/identify a housing, nor does the specification describe/identify a housing. Paragraph [0134] states that “A housing may protect the components” of a coupling device 400 shown in FIG. 4A. However, neither the figures nor the description describe a housing such that an optical output and optical input are in (part of?) the housing, and the first light source and optical coupler are inside the housing, etc. Examiner further points out that all of the figures, including FIGs. 2B, 3, 4A, 4B, and 7B of the present patent application are described in the specification as schematic representations, not intended to describe any structural features.
Appropriate correction by Applicant is required.
For purposes of examination, Examiner ignores the term “housing” and use thereof in Claim 1.
Similarly, Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. More specifically, it is unclear how a coherent-light source is inside the coherent-light coupling device. The coherent light sources (e.g., laser sources 406) are components of a coupling device, but the line surrounding the coupling device 400 is schematic, and not presented to describe a physical structure that contains the coherent light sources.
Appropriate correction by Applicant is required.
For purposes of examination, Examiner ignores the term “inside the coherent-light coupling device” when describing the coherent-light source in Claim 34.
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”. (See MPEP 2141.02(VI)) Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US PGPUB 2009/0217932 – “Voegele”) in view of Koitabashi et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0088198 – “Koitabashi”).
Regarding Claim 1, Voegele discloses:
A coupling device comprising:
an optical output (Voegele FIG. 15, output from optical switch 116) comprising an optical output connector (Voegele paragraph [0055], “the optical switch 116 can connect the selected source…to laparoscope 112) configured to connect the coupling device to a first light guide of an endoscopic system (Voegele FIG. 15, connection between optical switch 116 and scope 112; Voegele paragraph [0055], “The optical switch 116 can connect the selected source 114A, 114B to an optical fiber bundle (not shown) that extends through the laparoscope 112 for transmitting the light through an eyepiece at the distal end of the laparoscope 112”);
an optical input comprising an optical input connector (Voegele paragraph [0055], “the optical switch 116 can connect the selected source…to laparoscope 112) configured to connect the coupling device to a second light guide of the endoscopic system, the optical input being configured for receiving incoherent light from an incoherent light source of the endoscopic system (Voegele FIG. 15, incoherent light source 114A);
a first light source (Voegele FIG. 15, coherent light source 114B; Voegele paragraph [0055], “FIG. 15 illustrates one exemplary embodiment of a laparoscope 112 that has two illumination or light emitting sources, generically illustrated as elements 114A, 114B… The second light source can be a narrow-band source…such as a laser”) configured to generate coherent light; and
an optical coupler (Voegele FIG. 15, optical switch 116), the optical coupler being optically coupled to the optical input to receive the incoherent light and optically coupled to the first light source to receive the coherent light and optically coupled to the optical output (Voegele paragraph [0055], “optical switch 116 to select the illumination source(s). One illumination source can be a standard white light source, such as a Xenon arc lamp used in standard endoscopic systems for illuminating and viewing in the visible spectrum. The second light source can be a narrow-band source associated with the absorbance cross-section of the nanoparticles, such as a laser, LED, mercury source, or filtered broadband source.”), the optical coupler being configured to, simultaneously and/or alternately, inject the incoherent light (Voegele FIG. 15, white light from source 114B) and the coherent light (Voegele FIG. 15, light from source 114A) into the first light guide, wherein the coherent light and the incoherent light have a shared optical path at the optical output, the optical output being configured for providing the incoherent light and the coherent light to an endoscope via the first light guide (Voegele paragraph [0055], “The optical switch 116 can connect the selected source 114A, 114B to an optical fiber bundle (not shown) that extends through the laparoscope 112 for transmitting the light through an eyepiece at the distal end of the laparoscope 112”);
wherein, in at least a first state of the coupling device, the coupling device is configured to be an unobstructed incoherent light beam path for propagating the incoherent light from the optical input to the optical output; and in at least a second state of the coupling device, the coupling device is configured to be an unobstructed coherent light beam path for propagating the coherent light from the first light source to the optical output (Voegele paragraph [0055], “The optical switch 116 can connect the selected source 114A, 114B to an optical fiber bundle (not shown) that extends through the laparoscope 112 for transmitting the light through an eyepiece at the distal end of the laparoscope 112”).
Voegele does not explicitly disclose a housing, an optical output connector that is releasably connected to a first light guide, and an optical input connector that is releasably connected to a second light guide.
Koitabashi teaches a housing (Koitabashi FIG. 2, plug section 62 and socket section 72 of optical connector 14), an optical output connector that is releasably connected to a first light guide and an optical input connector that is releasably connected to a second light guide (Koitabashi FIG. 2, optical connector 14 comprising plug section 62 and socket section 72 for connecting first light guide 13 to second light guide 15; Examiner interprets the optical connector 14 has being appropriate for use as both the output connection and the input connections shown as optical switch in Voegele FIG. 15).
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 Koitabashi’s releasable optical connector with Voegele’s optical switch . 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 selectively connecting optical guides.
Claims 2-3, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US PGPUB 2009/0217932 – “Voegele”) in view of Koitabashi et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0088198 – “Koitabashi”) and Farkas et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0230098 – “Farkas”).
Regarding Claim 2, Voegele in view of Koitabashi teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Voegele in view of Koitabashi does not explicitly teach an optical switch configured for switching between a first state wherein the coherent light is not injected into the first light guide, and a second state wherein the coherent light is injected into the first light guide.
Farkas teaches wherein the optical coupler (Farkas FIG. 1, control circuit 14) is an optical switch configured for switching between a first state wherein the coherent light (Farkas FIG. 1, coherent light from laser 22 is not injected into the first light guide (Farkas FIG. 1, optical fiber 24), and a second state wherein the coherent light is injected into the first light guide (Farkas paragraph [0020], “control circuit 14 selectively activates and deactivates both the broadband light source 18 and laser 22”; Farkas paragraph [0021], “broadband light source 18 and laser 22 are operated in a substantially mutually exclusive fashion depending upon the operating mode of the endoscope 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 Farkas’ mutually exclusive selection of white light or laser light with the coupling device taught by Voegele in view of Koitabashi. 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 endoscope that can select white light when in macroscope mode (low magnification) or laser light when in microscopic mode (high magnification), as described in Farkas paragraph [0022].
Regarding Claim 3, Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Farkas further teaches wherein in the first state, the optical switch is configured to inject the incoherent light (Farkas FIG. 1, light from white light generator 18) into the first light guide (Farkas FIG. 1, light guide 10), and wherein in the second state, the optical switch is configured not to inject the incoherent light into the first light guide (Farkas paragraph [0020], “control circuit 14 selectively activates and deactivates both the broadband light source 18 and laser 22”). Examiner interprets light guides 20 and 24 as being components of a same input light guide for providing light to an endoscope.
Regarding Claim 17, Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Voegele further discloses wherein the first light source (Voegele FIG. 15, coherent light source 114B) is a narrow-bandwidth laser (Voegele paragraph [0055], “a narrow-band source…such as a laser…is a 780 nm pigtailed laser diode.”).
Regarding Claim 19, Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Voegele further discloses wherein the coherent light is in a red part of an electromagnetic spectrum (Voegele paragraph [0055], “a narrow-band source…such as a laser…is a 780 nm pigtailed laser diode.”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US PGPUB 2009/0217932 – “Voegele”) in view of Koitabashi et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0088198 – “Koitabashi”), Farkas et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0230098 – “Farkas”), and Wiltberger et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0147730 – “Wiltberger”).
Regarding Claim 4, Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas does not explicitly teach wherein the optical switch comprises:
a first mirror movable between a first position in which a reflective surface of the first mirror is positioned to reflect the incoherent light propagating over the incoherent light beam path, and a second position, in which the reflective surface of the first mirror is positioned to reflect the incoherent light in a direction away from the incoherent light beam path; and/or,
a second mirror movable between a first position in which a reflective surface of the second mirror is positioned to reflect the coherent light propagating over the coherent light beam path, and a second position, in which the reflective surface of the first mirror is positioned to reflect the coherent light in a direction away from the coherent light beam path.
Wiltberger teaches:
a first mirror movable between a first position in which a reflective surface of the first mirror is positioned to reflect incoherent light propagating over the incoherent light beam path, and a second position, in which the reflective surface of the first mirror is positioned to reflect the incoherent light in a direction away from the incoherent light beam path; and/or,
a second mirror movable (Wiltberger FIG. 1, moving mirror M1 having a light transmitting-portion 18 and a light-blocking portion 19) between a first position in which a reflective surface of the second mirror is positioned to reflect coherent light (Wiltberger FIG. 1, coherent light from laser light source 12) propagating over the coherent light beam path, and a second position, in which the reflective surface of the first mirror is positioned to reflect the coherent light in a direction away from the coherent light beam path (Wiltberger paragraph [0028], “the optical beam 16 is aimed at the light-transmitting portion 18 or the light-blocking portion 19 depending on the position of the mirror M1”). Examiner interprets the dashed optical beam 16 passing through the light-transmitting portion/opening 18 in aperture element 14 of Wiltberger as being a coherent light beam path.
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 Wiltberger’s movable light-aiming mirror M1 with the coupling device taught by Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas. 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 device capable of selectively outputting laser illumination for use by an endoscopic system.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US PGPUB 2009/0217932 – “Voegele”) in view of Koitabashi et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0088198 – “Koitabashi”), Farkas et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0230098 – “Farkas”), and Chen (US Patent 8,007,187 – “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 5, Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas does not explicitly teach wherein the optical switch comprises:
a first switchable mirror, switchable between a transparent state and a reflective state, positioned to reflect, in the reflective state, the incoherent light propagating over the incoherent light beam path; and/or
a second switchable mirror, switchable between a transparent state and a reflective state, positioned to reflect, in the reflective state, the coherent light propagating over the coherent light beam path.
Chen teaches:
a first switchable mirror (Chen FIG. 1, mirror 6 with smart glass element 6a), switchable between a transparent state and a reflective state (Chen col. 3, lines 60-63, “smart glass element 6a which switches between transparent and reflective states under electronic control”), positioned to reflect, in the reflective state, incoherent light propagating over the incoherent light beam path (Chen FIG. 1, optical light path 10); and/or
a second switchable mirror, switchable between a transparent state and a reflective state, positioned to reflect, in the reflective state, coherent light propagating over the coherent light beam path.
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 Chen’s smart glass mirror with the coupling device taught by Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas. 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 coupling device that selectively output incoherent light by controlling the reflective/transparent properties of a switchable mirror.
Claims 6-7, 9, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US PGPUB 2009/0217932 – “Voegele”) in view of Koitabashi et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0088198 – “Koitabashi”), Farkas et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0230098 – “Farkas”), and Kaneko et al. (US Patent 5,749,830 – “Kaneko”).
Regarding Claim 6, Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas does not explicitly teach:
wherein the optical switch comprises:
a first light beam blocker configured to block the coherent light in the first state.
Kaneko teaches:
wherein the optical switch (Kaneko FIG. 8, optical switch) comprises:
a first light beam blocker (Kaneko FIG. 8, CCU 121) configured to block the coherent light in the first state (Kaneko col. 13, lines 64-65, “light source apparatus 50 that are turned on/off by the CCU 121”).
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 Kaneko’s coherent light blocker with the coupling device taught by Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas. 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 optical switch that is able to selectively control which light sources provide light to an endoscope.
Regarding Claim 7, Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas teach the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas does not explicitly teach:
wherein the optical coupler comprises:
a first convergent lens configured to reduce divergence of the incoherent light from the optical input and a second convergent lens configured to focus the incoherent light into the first light guide; and
a mirror, positioned between the first lens and the second lens, configured to steer the coherent light beam and/or the incoherent light beam into the first light guide.
Kaneko teaches:
wherein the optical coupler (Kaneko FIG. 18, light switching apparatus 60) comprises:
a first convergent lens (Kaneko FIG. 18, optical lens 64) configured to reduce divergence of the incoherent light from the optical input (Kaneko FIG. 18, light from white light lamp 41) and a second convergent lens (Kaneko FIG. 18, optical lens 65) configured to focus the incoherent light into the first light guide (Kaneko FIG. 18, end surface 31a of light guide 31); and
a mirror (Kaneko FIG. 18, mirror 61), positioned between the first convergent lens and the second convergent lens, configured to steer the coherent light and/or the incoherent light (Kaneko FIG. 18, light from lamp 41) into the first light guide (Kaneko col. 7, lines 38-47, ”an introduced-light switching apparatus 60 having a switching mirror 61 and a driver 62 for operating the switching mirror 61, the switching mirror 61 serving as an introduced-light switching means for selectively introducing, into the light guide 31 of the endoscope 30, normal observing light emitted by the normal observing light source apparatus 40 or excitation light .lambda.0 emitted by the fluorescent observing light source apparatus 50”)
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 Kaneko’s lenses/mirror with the coupling device taught by Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas. 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 incoherent light converging on an input of a light guide going into an ocular portion of an endoscope (see col. 8, lines 21-40 of Kaneko).
Regarding Claim 9, Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas does not explicitly teach:
wherein the optical switch comprises:
an internal light guide configured to guide the incoherent light from a first end of the internal light guide to a second end of the internal light guide; and
a switching body comprising at least the second end of the internal light guide, the switching body being movable between a first position corresponding to the first state and a second position corresponding to the second state,
- in which first position, the switching body is configured to block the coherent light beam path, to position a first end of the internal light guide for receiving the incoherent light from the optical input, and to position the second end for injecting the incoherent light into the first light guide; and
- in which second position, the switching body is configured not to block the coherent light beam path, and to position at least the second end of the internal light guide such that the incoherent light is not injected into the first light guide.
Kaneko teaches:
wherein the optical switch (Kaneko FIG. 2, light switching apparatus 60) comprises:
an internal light guide (Kaneko FIG. 2, light guide 31 within light guide connector plugged into light switching apparatus 60) configured to guide the incoherent light (Kaneko FIG. 2, light from lamp 41) from a first end of the internal light guide (Kaneko FIG. 2, end surface 31a) to a second end (Kaneko FIG. 2, portion of light guide exiting light switching apparatus 60) of the internal light guide; and
a switching body (Kaneko FIG. 2, switching body including driver 62 and mirror 61) comprising at least the second end of the internal light guide, the switching body being movable between a first position (Kaneko FIG. 2, showing mirror 61 with solid line outline) corresponding to the first state and a second position (Kaneko FIG. 2, showing mirror 61 with dashed line outline) corresponding to the second state,
- in which first position, the switching body is configured to block the coherent light beam path, to position a first end of the internal light guide for receiving incoherent light from the optical input, and to position the second end for injecting the incoherent light into the first light guide (Kaneko col.8, lines 29-38, “When the switching mirror 61 is at the position designated by the continuous line, normal observation light emitted by the normal observation light source apparatus 40 is allowed to pass through optical lenses 42 and 64 and is reflected by the switching mirror 61, the normal observation light then being allowed to pass through an optical lens 65 so as to be converted to the end surface 31a of the light guide 31 of the endoscope 30.”); and
- in which second position, the switching body is configured not to block the coherent light beam path, and to position at least the second end of the internal light guide such that the incoherent light is not injected into the first light guide (Kaneko col. 8, lines 24-29, “when the switching mirror 61 is at the position designated by the dashed line, excitation light .lambda.0 emitted by the fluorescent observation light source apparatus 50 is allowed to pass through an optical lens 63 so as to be converged to an end surface 31a of the light guide 31 of the endoscope 30.”).
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 Kaneko’s switching body with the coupling device taught by Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas. 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 endoscope having light inputs that are exclusively either coherent or incoherent, according to the needs of the user.
Regarding Claim 39, Voegele in view of Farkas, Koitabashi, and Kaneko teaches the features of Claim 6, as described above.
Kaneko further teaches wherein the optical switch comprises a second light beam blocker (Kaneko FIG. 2, dashed line outline of mirror 61 positioned in a second position) configured to block the incoherent light in the second state (Kaneko FIG. 2, showing light from lamp 41 unable to be reflected towards light guide 31 when in a horizontal position).
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 Kaneko’s mirror with the coupling device taught by Voegele in view of Farkas, Koitabashi, and Kaneko. 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 endoscope capable of selectively utilizing either white light or laser light.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US PGPUB 2009/0217932 – “Voegele”) in view of Koitabashi et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0088198 – “Koitabashi”), Farkas et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0230098 – “Farkas”), Utsumi et al. (US Patent 5,888,194 – “Utsumi”), and Abdulhalim et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0349354 – “Abdulhalim”).
Regarding Claim 8, Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas does not explicitly teach wherein the optical coupler comprises:
a tapered light pipe having a wide end for receiving the incoherent light from the optical input and a narrow end for providing the incoherent light to the optical output, the tapered light pipe being divided into a first part and a second part by a plane intersecting the tapered light pipe between the wide end and the narrow end, a normal of the plane defining a non-zero angle with a longitudinal axis of the tapered light pipe; and
a mirror, positioned on the plane between the first part and the second part of the tapered light pipe on the longitudinal axis of the tapered light pipe, configured to steer the coherent light into the first light guide.
Utsumi teaches a tapered light pipe (Utsumi FIG. 1, tapered fiber 4) having a wide end for receiving the incoherent light from the optical input (Utsumi FIG. 1, lamp 2) and a narrow end for providing the incoherent light to the optical output (Utsumi FIG. 1, outgoing end 4b), the tapered light pipe being divided into a first part and a second part by a plane (Utsumi FIG. 1, normal plane) intersecting the tapered light pipe between the wide end and the narrow end, a normal of the plane defining a non-zero angle with a longitudinal axis of the tapered light pipe.
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 Utsumi’s tapered light guide with the coupling device taught by Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas. 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 coupling device capable of receiving a light input having a first diameter and reducing it in size to a smaller light output.
Voegele in view of Koitabashi, Farkas, and Utsumi do not explicitly teach a mirror, positioned on the plane between the first part and the second part of the tapered light pipe on the longitudinal axis of the tapered light pipe, configured to steer the coherent light into the first light guide.
Abdulhalim teaches a mirror (Abdulhalim FIG. 2b, dichroic mirror 70), positioned on the plane between the first part and the second part of the tapered light pipe on the longitudinal axis of the tapered light pipe, configured to steer the coherent light (Abdulhalim FIG. 2b, laser light from laser light source 10; Abdulhalim paragraph [0050], “light source (10) is selected from a laser…or a laser diode”)) into the first light guide (Abdulhalim FIG. 2b, light beam m). Examiner points out that Abdulhalim is being combined with the tapered light guide of Utsumi, such that light from mirror 70 is directed in the same decreasing area as shown between unit 4 and unit 3 in Abdulhalim FIG. 2B.
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 Abdulhalim’s dichroic mirror with the coupling device taught by Voegele in view of Koitabashi, Farkas, and Utsumi. 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 endoscope capable of using a laser to mark/center white illumination light (see paragraph [0082] of Abdulhalim).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US PGPUB 2009/0217932 – “Voegele”) in view of Koitabashi et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0088198 – “Koitabashi”), Farkas et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0230098 – “Farkas”), Kaneko et al. (US Patent 5,749,830 – “Kaneko”), and Tabe (US PGPUB 2023/0135724 – “Tabe”).
Regarding Claim 10, Voegele in view of Koitabashi, Farkas, and Kaneko teaches the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Kaneko further teaches wherein the internal light guide is a flexible light guide (Kaneko FIG. 37, light guide 615 within light guide connector plugged into light switching apparatus 602). Examiner interprets light guide 615 in Kaneko FIG. 37 and light guide 31 in Kaneko FIG. 2 as being equivalent.
Voegele in view of Koitabashi, Farkas, and Kaneko does not explicitly teach wherein the first end of the internal light guide is connected to the optical input.
Tabe teaches wherein the first end of the internal light guide (Tabe FIG. 2, incident end 51A of first light guide 51, which is at the proximal end of light guide unit 26) is connected to the optical input (Tabe FIG. 2, light source unit 42; Tabe paragraph [0056], “illumination light emitted from the light source unit 42 is incident on the light guide unit 26 of the endoscope 12 via, for example, light guide members (not shown)”).
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 Tabe’s internal light guide with the coupling device taught by Voegele in view of Koitabashi, Farkas, and Kaneko. 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 that is directly coupled to an endoscopic light guide, in order to avoid light interference.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US PGPUB 2009/0217932 – “Voegele”) in view of Koitabashi et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0088198 – “Koitabashi”), Farkas et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0230098 – “Farkas”), Kaneko et al. (US Patent 5,749,830 – “Kaneko”), and Silverstein et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0103519 – “Silverstein”).
Regarding Claim 12, Voegele in view of Farkas and Kaneko teaches the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Voegele in view of Koitabashi, Farkas, and Kaneko does not explicitly teach wherein the optical switch is an electrically operated switch with a motor, the motor being configured to move the switching body between the first position and the second position via a cam or a crank.
Silverstein teaches wherein the optical switch (Silverstein FIG. 2, mirror 49) is an electrically operated switch with a motor (Silverstein FIG. 2 rotation device 63), the motor being configured to move the switching body between the first position and the second position via a cam or a crank (Silverstein paragraph [0023], “Mirror 49 may be mounted to a rotation device 63, which may be…a pivot devise driven by a cam gear on a motor”).
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 Silverstein’s motor/cam to turn the mirror 61 taught by Kaneko in the coupling device taught by Voegele in view of Koitabashi, Farkas, and Kaneko. 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 switching mirror that is precisely controlled by an electronic driving device 62 (see also paragraphs [0023] and [0031] of Silverstein).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US PGPUB 2009/0217932 – “Voegele”) in view of Koitabashi et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0088198 – “Koitabashi”), Farkas et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0230098 – “Farkas”), and Fukumoto (US PGPUB 2020/0128166 – “Fukumoto”).
Regarding Claim 14, Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas does not explicitly teach wherein the optical switch is configured to switch automatically back and forth between the first state and the second state.
Fukumoto teaches wherein the optical switch (Fukumoto FIG. 1, light source device 30) is configured to switch automatically back and forth between the first state and the second state (Fukumoto FIG. 1, control circuitry 14a in camera control unit (CCU) 14; Fukumoto paragraph [0113], “control circuitry 14a outputs…a second light-source control signal…for implementing the output pattern (second lighting pattern) that causes the IR laser 30d to output excitation light alternating with white light” from white LED 30b shown in light source device 30).
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 Fukumoto’s controller to alternate laser/white lights with the coupling device taught by Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas. 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 endoscope capable of both illuminating and exciting an area of interest in a manner that appears seamless to a user (see FIG. 2 and paragraph [0064] of Fukumoto).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US PGPUB 2009/0217932 – “Voegele”) in view of Koitabashi et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0088198 – “Koitabashi”) and Irion et al. (US Patent 6,510,338 – “Irion”).
Regarding Claim 16, Voegele in view of Koitabashi teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Voegele in view of Koitabashi does not explicitly teach further comprising the second light guide, wherein the second light guide is a flexible light guide.
Irion teaches wherein the second light guide is a flexible light guide (Irion FIG. 1, flexible light guide 5 connected to coherent light source 6).
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 Irion’s flexible light guide with the device taught by Voegele in view of Koitabashi. 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 guide that is highly maneuverable for connection to a light source.
Claims 22 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US PGPUB 2009/0217932 – “Voegele”) in view of Koitabashi et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0088198 – “Koitabashi”), Farkas et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0230098 – “Farkas”), and Enomoto (US PGPUB 2006/0038882 – “Enomoto”).
Regarding Claim 22, Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas does not explicitly teach wherein the coupling device further comprises:
a video signal input connector configured to receive the video signal;
a video signal output connector configured to provide a video output; and
an image processing module configured to generate the video output based on the video signal, wherein the video output comprises coherent light images.
Enomoto teaches:
wherein the coupling device (Enomoto FIG. 1, coupling device including light source unit 10 and video-processor 30) further comprises:
a video signal input connector (Enomoto paragraph [0033], “video-scope 20 is connected to the video-processor 30”; Enomoto FIG. 1, first signal processing circuit 37) configured to receive the video signal (Enomoto paragraph [0022], “image signals is read from the CCD 26 at a 1/60 second time interval and is then fed to a first signal processing circuit 37”);
a video signal output connector configured to provide a video output (Enomoto FIG. 1, second signal processing circuit 39; Enomoto paragraph [0023], “in the second signal processing circuit 39, video signals are generated and output to the monitor 60 so that the observed image is displayed on the monitor 60”); and
an image processing module (Enomoto FIG. 1, monitor 60) configured to generate the video output based on the video signal, wherein the video output comprises coherent light images (Enomoto paragraph [0023], “the observed image is displayed on the monitor 60”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Enomoto’s coupling device with the coupling device disclosed by Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas. 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 system that is capable of generating a video/photo of a surgical area of interest in real time during a surgical operation.
Regarding Claim 29, Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas teaches the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas does not explicitly teach:
an image processing system configured to generate coherent light images, the image processing system comprising a video processing device, the video processing device comprising:
- a video signal input connector configured to receive a video signal from the camera;
- a first video signal output connector configured to provide a first video output, the first video signal output connector configured to be connected to a video signal input of the video processing unit of the endoscopic system; and
- an image processing module for generating coherent light images based the video signal when the optical switch is in the first state.
Enomoto teaches:
an image processing system (Enomoto FIG. 1, luminance signal generator 54) configured to generate coherent light images (Enomoto paragraph [0031], “In the luminance signal generator (LSG) 54, luminance signals are generated in accordance with image-pixel signals read from the CCD 26 at 1/60 (s) time intervals”), the image processing system comprising a video processing device (Enomoto FIG. 1, video-processor 30), the video processing device comprising:
- a video signal input connector (Enomoto FIG. 1, input to first signal processing circuit (FSPC) 37) configured to receive a video signal from the camera (Enomoto paragraph [0022], “image signals is read from the CCD 26 at a 1/60 second time interval and is then fed to a first signal processing circuit 37”);
- a first video signal output connector (Enomoto FIG. 1, output of FSPC 37) configured to provide a first video output (Enomoto FIG. 1, output of field memory 38), the first video signal output connector configured to be connected to a video signal input (Enomoto FIG. 1, input of LSG 54) of the video processing unit of the endoscopic system; and
- an image processing module (Enomoto FIG. 1, second signal processing circuit (SSPC) 39) for generating coherent light images based the video signal (Enomoto paragraph [0023], “In the second signal processing circuit 39, video signals are generated and output to the monitor 60 so that the observed image is displayed on the monitor 60”) when the optical switch is in the first state (Enomoto paragraph [0023], “In the first signal processing circuit 37,various processes, such as an amplifying process, a white balance process, and so on, are performed for the image-pixel signals, so that digital image signals are generated and are fed to a field memory 38…and are fed to a second signal processing circuit 39”).
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 Enomoto’s endoscopic system with the coupling device disclosed by Voegele in view of Koitabashi and Farkas. 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 system that is capable of displaying a video/photo of a surgical area of interest in real time during a surgical operation.
Regarding Claim 30, Voegele in view of Koitabashi, Farkas, and Enomoto teaches the features of Claim 29, as described above.
Enomoto further teaches wherein the image processing system further comprises a second video signal output connector configured to provide a second video output and to be connected to a second display (Enomoto FIG. 1, output of SSPC 39 connected to monitor 60; note that duplication of an element of a teaching art in a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection where no unexpected result is produced by the duplication of parts provides no patentable distinction), the image processing system being configured to provide an incoherent light image as the first video output when the optical switch is in the first state and to provide a coherent light image as the second video output when the optical switch is in the second state (Enomoto paragraph [0024], “when the auto-fluorescence observation mode is selected by operating the keyboard 90, the laser 34 and the xenon lamp 32 alternately emit light.”).
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 Enomoto’s alternating laser and white light with the system taught by Voegele in view of Koitabashi, Farkas, and Enomoto. 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 system capable of both naturally illuminating and exciting an area of interest during an endoscopic operation.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US PGPUB 2009/0217932 – “Voegele”) in view of Kaneko et al. (US Patent 5,749,830 – “Kaneko”), Koitabashi et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0088198 – “Koitabashi”), and Pinho et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0006178 – “Pinho”).
Regarding Claim 34, Voegele discloses:
A method for generating a coherent-light-based image of a target area in an object using an endoscopic system (Voegele paragraph [0050]), the endoscopic system comprising:
- an incoherent light source (Voegele FIG. 15, light source 114A; Voegele paragraph [0055], “FIG. 15 illustrates one exemplary embodiment of a laparoscope 112 that has two illumination or light emitting sources, generically illustrated as elements 114A, 114B…One illumination source can be a standard white light source”) for generating incoherent light; and,
- an endoscope (Voegele FIG. 15, laparoscope 112), the endoscope comprising an insertion tube for inserting in a patient body (Voegele FIG. 15, showing laparoscope 112 being inserted into a patient), a light delivery system (Voegele FIG. 15, light sources 114A and 114B and optical switch 116 connected by a light guide to laparoscope 112) for illuminating the target area, and an image sensor (Voegele FIG. 15, camera 120) for acquiring an image of the target area;
the endoscope being releasably connected to a coherent light coupling device via a first light guide (Voegele paragraph [0055], “The optical switch 116 can connect the selected source 114A, 114B to an optical fiber bundle (not shown) that extends through the laparoscope 112 for transmitting the light through an eyepiece at the distal end of the laparoscope 112.”), the coherent light coupling device being configured to:
- generate or receive a trigger signal (Voegele FIG. 15, element 118; Voegele paragraph [0055], “light is transmitted, e.g., by depressing a switch, button, or foot pedal, generically illustrated as element 118”);
- generate coherent light of a first wavelength (Voegele FIG. 15, coherent light source 114B connected to optical switch 116) with a coherent-light source inside the coherent-light coupling device; and
- selectively provide the coherent light and/or the incoherent light to the first light guide, wherein the coherent light and the incoherent light have a shared optical path in the first light guide (Voegele paragraph [0055], “The optical switch 116 can connect the selected source 114A, 114B to an optical fiber bundle (not shown) that extends through the laparoscope 112 for transmitting the light through an eyepiece at the distal end of the laparoscope 112.”);
the method comprising:
receiving a first trigger signal (Voegele FIG. 15, element 118; Voegele paragraph [0055], “light is transmitted, e.g., by depressing a switch, button, or foot pedal, generically illustrated as element 118”);
in response to receiving the first trigger signal, providing the coherent light generated by the coherent-light source to the light delivery system (Voegele FIG. 15, element 118; Voegele paragraph [0055], “light is transmitted, e.g., by depressing a switch, button, or foot pedal, generically illustrated as element 118”);
receiving a video stream, the video stream comprising a signal representing a light intensity of the coherent light reflected or dispersed by the target area (Voegele FIG. 15, monitor 124 and camera control box 126; Voegele paragraph [0056], “the captured image can be transmitted to a monitor 124 coupled to the camera 120 by a camera control box 126”); and
determining a coherent light image based on the video stream (Voegele paragraph [0056], “the captured image can be transmitted to a monitor 124 coupled to the camera 120 by a camera control box 126”).
Voegele does not explicitly disclose that the first light guide between the endoscope and the coherent light coupling system is releasably connected, or that the coherent light coupling system is configured to receive the incoherent light from the incoherent light source via a second light guide.
Kaneko teaches the first light guide (Kaneko FIG. 2, light guide 31) between the endoscope (Kaneko FIG. 2, endoscope 30) and the coherent light coupling system (Kaneko FIG. 2, light-switching apparatus 60) is releasably connected (Kaneko FIG. 2, showing light guide connector 37 plugged into light-switching apparatus 60).
Kaneko also teaches that the coherent light coupling system is configured to receive the incoherent light from the incoherent light source via a second light guide (Kaneko FIG. 8, light guide cord 123a).
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 Kaneko’s releasable first light guide and second light guide in the method disclosed by Voegele. 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 method capable of receiving unobstructed light sources while generating an image during an endoscopic operation.
Voegele in view of Kaneko does not explicitly teach an optical output connector that is releasably connected to a first light guide and an optical input connector that is releasably connected to a second light guide.
Koitabashi teaches an optical output connector that is releasably connected to a first light guide and an optical input connector that is releasably connected to a second light guide (Koitabashi FIG. 2, optical connector 14 comprising plug section 62 and socket section 72 for connecting first light guide 13 to second light guide 15; Examiner interprets the optical connector 14 has being appropriate for use as both the output connection and the input connections shown as optical switch in Voegele FIG. 15).
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 Koitabashi’s releasable optical connector with Voegele’s optical switch in the method taught by Voegele in view of Kaneko . 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 selectively connecting optical guides.
Although the figures and descriptions from the present patent application do not describe a housing for a coherent-light coupling device, for purposes of compact prosecution Examiner further cites Pihno as teaching the feature of providing the coherent light generated by the coherent-light source inside the coherent-light coupling device (Pihno FIG. 2, showing housing 16 connecting optical fiber 19 to light guide 18; Pihno paragraph [0030], “The illuminator can be a laser, LED or other suitable light source, and can be disposed within housing 16”).
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 Pihno’s internal laser with Koitabashi’s optical connector 14 when performing the method taught by Voegele in view of Kaneko and Koitabashi. 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 method that utilizes a local source, in order to avoid light loss that occurs when transmitting light from a remote source.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed April 1, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 10-11, Applicant asserts that a combination of Voegele (US PGPUB 2009/0217932 – “Voegele”) and Koitabashi et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0088198 – “Koitabashi”) fails to teach a light source and an optical coupler that are both internal to the coupling device.
First, as noted in the rejection of Claim 1 above, the figures and written description do not support this feature, since the figures are described in the written description as schematics which provide no physical positioning or enclosing structure (see attached definition of a schema from Mirriam-Webster: a diagrammatic presentation; broadly : a structured framework or plan : outline; and a description from Wikipedia of the term schematic: A schematic, or schematic diagram, is a designed representation of the elements of a system using abstract, graphic symbols rather than realistic pictures).
Second, Koitabashi teaches a housing for an optical connector (Koitabashi FIG. 2, plug section 62 and socket section 72 of optical connector 14).
Third, the prior art shows that having a structural container for an optical coupler is well known (see Zuluaga et al. (US PGPUB 2003/0228085 – “Zuluaga”); Lucey et al. (US Patent 5,808,813 – “Lucey”); Korn (US PGPUB 20040109636 – “Korn”), described below in the conclusion section), which provide evidence that having a housing for a coupling device is not novel.
Fourth, Examiner notes that a mere rearrangement of components such that they are within a housing provides no patentable weight in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 under MPEP 2244.04(VI)(C).
Finally, Examiner notes that new citation of Pinho et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0006178 – “Pinho”) in the rejection of Claim 34 for teaching a housing for an optical coupler.
On page 12 , Applicant asserts that Voegele (US PGPUB 2009/0217932 – “Voegele”) fails to teach “wherein the coherent light and the incoherent light have a shared optical path at the optical output”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and believes that the distal end of the endoscope meets the definition of an optical output (Voegele paragraph [0055], “The optical switch 116 can connect the selected source 114A, 114B to an optical fiber bundle (not shown) that extends through the laparoscope 112 for transmitting the light through an eyepiece at the distal end of the laparoscope 112”).
As such, the rejection of Claim 1, and similarly Claim 34, under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1-10, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, 22, 29-30, 34, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes, but is not limited to:
Zuluaga et al. (US PGPUB 2003/0228085 – “Zuluaga”), which teaches in Zuluaga FIG. 3 a multi-channel optical coupler28 having a cylindrical housing 28;
Lucey et al. (US Patent 5,808,813 – “Lucey”), which teaches in Lucey FIG. 5 a housing 70 for the optical coupler 10 shown in Lucey FIG. 1; and
Korn (US PGPUB 20040109636 – “Korn”), which teaches in Korn FIG. 5 a multi-channel optical coupler 28 having a housing 42.
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
5/31/26
Prosecution Insights