DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 04/29/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 28 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Manohara et al. (US 2009/0187072 A1). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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) 25 – 27, 29 – 30, 33 – 34, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hale et al. (US 8,711,177 B2).
Regarding claim 25, Hale discloses a throat examination device (Abstract, paragraph [0004]) for examining a throat of a patient, the throat examination device comprising:
- a support arm (Fig. 6, ref. 650) having a longitudinal axis (X) (ref. 60), the support arm having a rigid construction (the embodiment shown in Fig. 6 is rigid and not flexible and in addition the proximal end of the arm is disclosed as being either being rigid or flexible);
- a handle disposed at a proximal end of the support arm (Summary, (19)); and
- an imaging module comprising an imaging unit disposed at a distal end of the support arm, the imaging unit comprising at least one imaging sensor (Summary (18) discloses an HD image sensor located in the distal end) for capturing an image of at least a portion of a pharynx and at least a portion of an oral cavity (the sensor is fully capable of functioning in such a manner);
- 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 (Summary (38), Fig. 6, ref. 665);
- wherein the angular orientation of the imaging unit is fixed relative to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 26, Hale discloses the throat examination device as claimed in claim 25, wherein the wide-angle lens is a spherical lens or a part-spherical lens (Fig. 6 shows a partially spherical lens).
Regarding claim 27, Hale discloses the throat examination device as claimed in claim 25, wherein the wide-angle lens is a hemispherical lens (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 29, Hale discloses the throat examination device as claimed in claim 25 comprising at least one control unit, the at least one control unit comprising:
- an electronic processor (ref. 208) having:
- one or more electrical input for receiving image data generated by the at least one imaging sensor (region of interest signal ref. 216 and/or ref. 214 is considered the electrical input); and/or
- one or more electrical output for outputting image data to an external device (the video signal ref. 222 is considered the output).
Regarding claim 30, Hale discloses the 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 user interface is considered to be the standard display ref. 210 which displays the output from the imaging sensor).
Regarding claim 33, Hale discloses the throat examination device as claimed in claim 25 comprising a cover (ref. 670) for covering at least a portion of the imaging module (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 34, Hale discloses the throat examination device as claimed in claim 25, wherein the support arm comprises a cylindrical casing (the figures show an elongated cylindrical body where the outer surface is considered to the casing).
Regarding claim 37, Hale discloses the 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 (Summary (31) discloses a light emitting diode).
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manohara et al. (US 2009/0187072 A1).
Regarding claim 39, Manohara discloses a device fully capable of functioning as a throat examination device for examining a throat of a patient, the throat examination device comprising:
- a support arm having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 13A, ref. 1302); and
- an imaging unit comprising two or more imaging sensors for capturing images (paragraph [0140] discloses an image acquisition device ref. 1330 having an array 1337 which are considered the two or more sensors), the imaging unit being disposed on the support arm (Fig. 13B);
- wherein the imaging unit is configured to generate a composite image formed by combining the images captured by the two or more imaging sensors (paragraph [0140] discloses forming a 3D image from the captured images from the array/sensors).
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) 31 - 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale et al. (US 8,771,177 B2) in view of Marmor (US 2016/0150947 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Hale discloses the throat examination device as claimed in claim 25, except wherein the imaging module is removably mounted on the support arm.
Marmor teaches an analogous device in which an imagining module may be removably mounted to a medical device (Abstract) and more specifically wherein 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 attachment of the image module to the endoscope of Hale, such that it is removably threaded to the support arm, as taught by Marmor, for the purpose of being removable, sterilized or disinfected and
reused (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 32, Hale in view of Marmor discloses the throat examination device as claimed in claim 31 comprising one or more mechanical fastener for releasably fastening the imaging module to the support arm (Marmor discloses a threading as a mechanical fastener).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale et al. (US 8,771,177 B2) in view of Hoeg et a. (US 2014/0046132 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Hale discloses the throat examination device as claimed in claim 25, except wherein the support arm has a diameter less than or equal to 20mm.
Hoeg teaches an endoscope having a diameter less than 20 mm (paragraph [0022] discloses a diameter less than 15 mm). 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 diameter of Hale such that the diameter is less than 20 mm, as taught by Hoeg, for the purpose of preventing unwanted tissue disruption during use.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale et al. (US 8,771,177 B2) in view of Francher (US 2019/0313881 A1)
Regarding claim 36, Hale discloses the throat examination device as claimed in claim 25, except wherein the support arm is removably mounted to the handle.
Francher teaches an endoscope (Abstract) having a removably mounted handle (ref. 120, paragraph [0083]). 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 endoscope of Hale such that the support arm is removably mounted to the handle, as taught by Francher, for the purpose of reducing cost via disposable parts (paragraph [0031]).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale et al. (US 8,771,177 B2) in view of Manohara et al. (US 2009/0187072 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Hale discloses an endoscope fully capable of functioning as a throat examination device for examining a throat of a patient, the throat examination device comprising:
-a support arm (Fig. 6, ref. 650) having a longitudinal axis (X) (ref. 60), the support arm having a rigid construction (the embodiment shown in Fig. 6 is rigid and not flexible and in addition the proximal end of the arm is disclosed as being either being rigid or flexible):
- a handle disposed at a proximal end of the support arm (Summary, (19)): and
- an imagine module comprising an imaging unit disposed at a distal end of the support arm, the imaging unit comprising a sensor (Summary (18) discloses an HD image sensor located in the distal end) for capturing an image of at least a portion of a pharynx and at least a portion of an oral cavity (the imaging module if fully capable of functioning in such a manner):
- the imaging module having a one wide-angle lens (Summary (19)) disposed in a distal location and having an optical axis substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 6):
- wherein the angular orientation of the imaging a unit is fixed relative to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 6).
Hale is silent that the sensor is a plurality of sensors.
Manohara teaches a device fully capable of functioning as a throat examination device for examining a throat of a patient, the throat examination device comprising:
- a support arm having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 13A, ref. 1302); and
- an imaging unit comprising a plurality of imaging sensors for capturing images (paragraph [0140] discloses an image acquisition device ref. 1330 having an array 1337 which are considered the two or more sensors), the imaging unit being disposed on the support arm (Fig. 13B). 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 sensor of Hale to be a plurality of sensors, as taught by Manohara for the purpose of creating a stereoscopic 3D image to better aid the user (paragraph [0140]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. Specifically, please see Ratnakar (US 2023/0371789 A1) which although not used in the current rejections may be relied upon in the future.
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
Prosecution Insights