DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment filed 3/23/23 is entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 3, the phrase “the or at least” should be amended to read “the at least” consistent with prior terminology recited in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 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. In claim 10, the term “the communication means” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 recites the same subject matter of claim 1, and thus does not further limit the invention of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 9,711,066 B2 to DINTHER in view of US 2018/0078115 A1 to GUPTA.
Regarding claim 1, DINTHER teaches a device for simulating the movement of an endoscope in an environment (FIG. 1, ref. 10: system; col. 1, lines 13-18: a training aid which simulates movement of a virtual endoscope in a virtual human or animal body passageway or cavity, and which preferably provides for improved realism and/or accuracy in the simulated path in the virtual space), the simulation device comprising:
a tube modelling an endoscope tube (ref. 16: tube; col. 3, line 28-33 and 55-57: tube 16 is preferably selected to have structural properties (e.g., flexibility/rigidity, thickness, etc) similar to that of a genuine tube for an endoscope), a tracking module comprising a housing into which the tube is insertable and translatable and/or rotatable, the tracking module comprising means for detecting movements of the tube in the housing and means for communicating the detected movements to a controller (col. 3, line 28-33 and 62-col. 8, line 3: user inserts the tip of tube 16 into an opening in housing 17…one or more sensors 18 may be provided at the opening to monitor movement of tube 16. Preferably, sensor(s) 18 monitor both rotational and translational movement of tube 16 as it passes through the opening; col. 8, lines 30-31: Sensor(s) 18 is coupled to circuit 21 which relays information to processor 12 via bus 14.), the controller being configured to generate, at each instant, an image of a portion of an environment based on the movements of the tube detected by the detecting means so as to simulate the movement of an endoscope in the environment (col. 8, lines 61-67: Software stored in memory 13 and executed by processor 12 translates the sensed tube 16 movement into an interactive three dimensional view of the particular simulated passageway or cavity under examination; col. 4, lines 66-67: Preferably, the images are updated in response to user inputs substantially in real-time.).
Regarding claim 1, DINTHER teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the tracking module comprises fastening means adapted to fasten the tracking module a releasable manner onto a support, such as a table.
Regarding claim 2, DINTHER teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the fastening means comprise at least one compression member adapted to compress the support.
Regarding claim 3, DINTHER teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one compression member comprises at least one element made of a material suitable for fastening to the support by pressure, suction or suction cup.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, DINTHER teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the fastening means comprise two opposing compression members adapted to compress opposing surfaces of the support.
Regarding claim 5, DINTHER teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the compression members are two clamping jaws connected to each other by at least one holding element or are two magnetic elements.
Regarding claim 6, DINTHER teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the holding element comprises a spring.
Regarding claim 11, DINTHER teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the support is a table.
However, regarding the limitations of claims 1-6 and 11-12, GUPTA teaches an endoscope restraining system for restraining motion of an endoscope tube including an attachment portion configured to attach the endoscope restraining system to a surface (Abstract), the attachment portion comprising a spring clamp capable of attaching the endoscope restraining system to a table (par. 0043). Further, Examiner takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a spring clamp, as recited in GUPTA, as a well-known structure comprising all the elements recited in claims 2-6 and 12 (i.e., at least one compression member adapted to compress the support; wherein the at least one compression member comprises at least one element made of a material suitable for fastening to the support by pressure; wherein the fastening means comprise two opposing compression members adapted to compress opposing surfaces of the support; wherein the compression members are two clamping jaws connected to each other by at least one holding element; wherein the holding element comprises a spring). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the table-mounted spring clamp, as taught by GUPTA, into the modified endoscopic training system of DINTHER, in order to secure the housing of DINTHER to a table during use by applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results of preventing undesired movement of the device during use.
Regarding claims 7 and 13-17, DINTHER further teaches wherein the tracking module comprises a channel upstream of the housing, the channel being adapted to support the tube as the tube is inserted into and moved within the housing of the tracking module (col. 7, lines 63-64: opening [of housing] may be provided with a funnel to guide insertion).
Regarding claims 8 and 18-20, DINTHER teaches the elements above and further teaches the preferred embodiments of the invention are readily portable, since bulky, heavy equipment is not required (col. 7, lines 24-26). Although DINTHER does not expressly disclose wherein the tracking module weighs 500 grams or less, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of design choice, to make the modified housing assembly of DINTHER (i.e., housing, sensor, and circuit) 500 grams or less, as claimed, using lightweight materials, in order to provide a readily portable device (DINTHER, col. 7, lines 24-26), and because Applicant has not disclosed the importance or criticality of the weight of the tracking module being “500 grams or less” (e.g., see SPEC 2 and 4, which merely state the weight of 500 grams or less with no further explanation), thus evidencing a lack of importance or criticality of the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified tracking module of DINTHER to be 500 grams or less, as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 9, DINTHER further teaches wherein the detecting means comprise a single optical sensor (col. 8, lines 4-10: laser-based sensor. Other forms of optical … sensors).
Regarding claim 10, DINTHER further teaches wherein the device comprises a controller adapted to communicate with the communication means (col. 8, lines 30-31: Sensor(s) 18 is coupled to circuit 21 which relays information to processor 12 via bus 14.), the controller being configured to generate, at each instant, an image of a portion of an environment based on movements of the tube detected by the detecting means so as to simulate movement of an endoscope in the environment (col. 8, lines 61-67: Software stored in memory 13 and executed by processor 12 translates the sensed tube 16 movement into an interactive three dimensional view of the particular simulated passageway or cavity under examination; col. 4, lines 66-67: Preferably, the images are updated in response to user inputs substantially in real-time.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hull whose telephone number is 571-272-0996. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7147. 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights