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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 25, applicant argues that Cooper in view of Hendrix does not disclose “the imaging module having one wide-angle lens disposed in a distal location and having an optical axis substantially aligned with or parallel to the longitudinal axis” of the support arm. The Office respectfully disagrees. It is agreed that the optical axis of the wide-angle lens (ref. 30) of Hendrix is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the blade (see Fig. 4a), however the optical axis is “substantially aligned” with the longitudinal axis because it is situated substantially on the longitudinal axis and emits from the longitudinal axis. Applicant also argues that the combination of Cooper in view of Hendrix would defeat the fundamental purpose and function of Cooper’s base device. The Office disagrees. The safety function achieved through sensor body 20 and detector 40 would not be altered by adding a wide-angle lens to the imaging unit 150.
Regarding claim 26, applicant argues that the lens of Hendrix is not spherical or part-spherical since such limitation cannot be derived directly from the drawings. The Office respectfully disagrees. The drawings show two different types of lenses, a part-spherical or spherical lens clearly shown in Fig. 3a (see below) and a non-spherical lens shown in Fig. 3b. Lack of written description of such a term does not negate the disclosure provided by the drawings.
PNG
media_image1.png
303
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, applicant argues that the sensor body 20 does not constitute an imaging module. The Office respectfully disagrees. The imaging module is comprised of a plurality of different parts, including the video camera 150, light source 50 and sensor body 20. The imaging unit is solely comprised of the camera and light; however, the module is being interpreted as a grouping or system of parts. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 33, applicant argues that the detector 40 does not constitute an imaging module. As stated above, the imaging module comprises of a grouping of parts, including the sensor 20 and detector 40. The detector 40 has an upper layer which covers other components, thus being part of the imaging module and covering at least a portion (such as ref. 42) of the imaging module. It is noted that the cover 46 does not cover a portion of the imaging unit.
Regarding claim 34, applicant argues that Hendrix teaches away from the arrangement of claim 34. The Office respectfully disagrees with this argument because Hendrix is not relied upon to teach the support arm and its configuration or shape. Thus, any analogous support arm of Hendrix is immaterial to the support arm of Cooper.
Regarding claim 36, please see paragraph [0024] which further clarifies that support arm and handle may be attached in a conventional manner, thus being removable.
Regarding claim 38, applicant argues that the sensor body 20 and the detector 40 do not include an imaging sensor. It is noted that the imaging module comprises a grouping of parts, including the sensor body 20, detector 40 and video camera and light 150. The video camera is fully capable of capturing an image of at least a portion of the of one or more of: the oral cavity, the oropharynx and the laryngopharynx if used in such a manner. In addition the imaging module component 20 is attached to the handle in a convention manner and thus not formed as a single unitary device and is therefore fully capable of being removed.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/27/2025, with respect to claim 28 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 28 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cooper (US 2008/0294010 A1).
Regarding claim 38, Cooper discloses a throat examination device for examining a throat of a patient (Abstract), the throat examination device comprising:
- a support arm having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 2, ref. 10, see remarked Fig. 2 below); and
- an imaging module comprising at least one imaging sensor for capturing an image of at least a portion of one or more of: the oral cavity, the oropharynx and the laryngopharynx (paragraph [0037] discloses a camera and light source as part of the imaging module comprises, refs. 20, 100, 150);
- wherein the imaging module is removably mounted on the support arm (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0024-25]).
PNG
media_image2.png
476
841
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 25, 26, 28 – 31 and 33 - 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 2008/0294010 A1) in view of Hendrix et al. (US 2016/0250432 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Cooper discloses a throat examination device for examining a throat of a patient (Abstract), the throat examination device comprising:
- a support arm (ref. 10) having a longitudinal axis (X), the support arm having a rigid construction (paragraph [0024]);
- a handle disposed at a proximal end of the support arm (re. 30); and
- an imaging module comprising an imaging unit disposed at a distal end of the support arm (Fig. 2, refs. 20, 22, 50 and Fig. 5, ref.150), the imaging unit comprising at least one imaging sensor (paragraph [0037] discloses a video camera) for capturing an image of at least a portion of a pharynx and at least a portion of an oral cavity (ref. 20, paragraph [0024]),
- wherein the angular orientation of the imaging unit is fixed relative to the longitudinal axis (cooper makes no mention of the light being movable and shown affixed to the blade).
Cooper is silent that the imaging module has a wide-angle lens disposed in a distal location and having an optical axis substantially aligned with or parallel to the longitudinal axis.
Hendrix teaches an analogous device (Abstract) having an imaging module (paragraph [0021]) having a wide-angle lens disposed in a distal location of a blade (Fig. 1 – 3a, refs. 30, 31, paragraph [0021]) and is substantially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the blade because it is situated substantially on the longitudinal axis and emits from the longitudinal axis (Fig. 4a). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cooper to include the wide-angle lens disposed in a distal location of the blade, as taught by Hendrix, for the purpose of providing a wide-angle field of view and panoramic fields of view (paragraphs [0021-22]).
PNG
media_image2.png
476
841
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Cooper in view of Hendrix discloses a throat examination device as claimed in claim 25, wherein the wide-angle lens is a spherical lens or a part-spherical lens (Hendrix, Fig. 3a shows the lens to be spherical or part-spherical).
Regarding claim 29, Cooper in view of Hendrix discloses a throat examination device as claimed in claim 25 comprising at least one control unit, the at least one control unit comprising: - an electronic processor having: - one or more electrical input for receiving image data generated by the at least one imaging sensor; and/or - one or more electrical output for outputting image data to an external device (Cooper, paragraph [0014] discloses a viewing screen and video camera that would work with the sensors, in addition Hendrix, paragraph [0021] discloses an electric input in the form of the camera capture circuitry and an electrical output in the form electrical transmission “image that will be transmitted”).
Regarding claim 30, Cooper in view of Hendrix discloses a throat examination device as claimed in claim 29 comprising a user interface for generating an image capture request in dependence on a user input, the at least one control unit being configured to capture image data generated by the at least one imaging sensor in dependence on the image capture request (the switches to control the sensors and cameras are considered to be the user interfaces, the camera captures image data generated by the sensors and lighting elements)
Regarding claim 31, Cooper in view of Hendrix discloses a throat examination device as claimed in claim 25, wherein the imaging module is removably mounted on the support arm (paragraph [0025] of Cooper discloses mounting the module via adhesive or other ways and makes no mention of the mounting being permanent, thus being removably mounted).
Regarding claim 33, Cooper in view of Hendrix discloses a throat examination device as claimed in claim 25 comprising a cover for covering at least a portion of the imaging module (Cooper, Fig. 3, paragraph [0027], ref. 46).
Regarding claim 34, Cooper in view of Hendrix discloses a throat examination device as claimed in claim 25, wherein the support arm comprises a casing (paragraph [0027], ref. 46), but is silent that the shape of the casing and/or blade is cylindrical. Cooper, in paragraph [0038] discloses that other shapes may be applied. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the casing and blade of Cooper in view of Hendrix to be cylindrical to better match the shape of the throat and prevent unwanted damage via sharp edges of other shapes and since applicant has not disclosed that such solve any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a forming edge in the heating portion or clamp. In re Dailey and Eilers, 149 USPQ 47 (1966).
Regarding claim 35, Cooper in view of Hendrix discloses a throat examination device as claimed in claim 25, except wherein the support arm has a diameter less than or equal to 20mm. Cooper, in paragraph [0038], discloses changes in sizes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support arm of Cooper in view of Hendrix such that the arm has a diameter less than or equal to 20 mm since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 36, Cooper in view of Hendrix discloses a throat examination device as claimed in claim 25, wherein the support arm is removably mounted to the handle (Cooper, Fig. 5, paragraph [0024] which states that the handle 30 may be attached to the support arm 10/20 and thus is considered removable).
Regarding claim 37, Cooper in view of Hendrix discloses a throat examination device as claimed in claim 25 comprising one or more light emitting devices disposed on the support arm and/or the imaging module (Cooper, ref. 50).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 2008/0294010 A1) in view of Hendrix et al. (US 2016/0250432 A1) and further in view of Geist et al. (US 2017/0360369 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Cooper in view of Hendrix discloses the throat examination device as claimed in claim 25, except wherein the wide-angle lens is a hemispherical lens.
Geist teaches an esophageal device comprising a camera located as a distal end of the device (paragraph [0027]) wherein the lens of the camera may be a hemispherical lens or a panoramic lens (paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the spherical lens of Cooper in view of Hendrix for a hemispherical lens, as taught by Geist, for the purpose of a better wide-angle capture.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 2008/0294010 A1) in view of Hendrix et al. (US 2016/0250432 A1) and in view of Marmor (US 2016/0150947 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Cooper in view of Hendrix discloses a throat examination device as claimed in claim 31 except for further comprising one or more mechanical fastener for releasably fastening the imaging module to the support arm, however Cooper does disclose that the module may be attached via adhesive or in other ways.
Marmor teaches an analogous device in which a light source may be threaded through a lumen of a blade (paragraph [0040]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the means of attaching the image module to be threaded through the blade, as taught by Marmor, for the purpose of being removable, sterilized or disinfected and reused (paragraph [0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TESSA M MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8817. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am - 1pm.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at (571) 272-4719. 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.
/TESSA M MATTHEWS/Examiner, Art Unit 3773