DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 11/20/2025, with respect to the objections to the specification and claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 5/27/2025 have been withdrawn.
In regards to the 112(f) interpretation of “first light guide member”, the applicant’s amendment of 11/20/2025 has overcome this interpretation.
Applicant's arguments against the 102(a)(1) filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued that Yoshino does not disclose that “the controller is configured to compare, with a threshold value, a relative value of an intensity of the reflected light of a predetermined wavelength received by the light sensor to an intensity of the reflected light of the predetermined wavelength when the tip end is inserted into the subject, and when the relative value is higher than the threshold value, the controller stops the emission of the at least one of the first light or the second light.” The applicant has supported this argument stating that the Applicant’s invention “is very different from the present claimed disclosure. More specifically, the present claimed disclosure focuses on the fact that there is a difference between the amount of reflected light received when inside of a subject as opposed to when outside of a subject. In the comparison of a relative value (i.e., which essentially represents an intensity ratio) with a threshold value, the present application takes advantage of how a portion of light emitted becomes absorbed when the light is being emitted inside of a subject. That is, in the present disclosure the relative value represents an intensity ratio that is compared to the threshold, not a mere pattern recognition.” (Emphasis added by Applicant)
The Examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive. MPEP 2141.02 states “Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue requires interpreting the claim language, and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole.” In addition, MPEP 2145 Section VI states “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).” In the instant application and rebuttal, the applicant has stated that claim 1 is allowable over Yoshino because Yoshino does not teach that the relative value represents an intensity ratio that is compared to the threshold. This limitation is not in Claim 1 and therefore this line of argument is moot. Yoshino discloses monitoring a signal level which corresponds to amplitudes signal levels of red, green, and blue light that has been reflected back from a target site. This is most completely explained in paragraphs [0085]-[0098]. The signal level is compared to a threshold value and then a determination regarding further light emission intensity and/or necessity is made. Furthermore, the argument that Yoshino doesn’t take into account that the light intensity is compared to at a time when the insertion part is outside of a subject is not persuasive because this time point is arbitrarily selected and also not present in the claims. Yoshino clearly shows that the controller can perform the comparison on any two data points in time. Therefore, the 102 rejection of 5/27/2025 is maintained.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2014/01810012 to Yoshino et al (hereinafter “Yoshino”). In regards to claims 1-6, Yoshino discloses an endoscope system comprising:
an insertion component which includes a base end and a tip end, and is configured to be inserted into a subject at least up to the tip end (Fig. 1, Element 11, [0035][0036]); a light source which emits first light and second light having a hue different from a hue of the first light (Element 31a-c, Element 32, [0049]-[0052]); a light sensor which is sensitive to a wavelength of at least one of the first light or the second light (Element 23, [0068]-[0069]); and a controller which controls the light source based on a result of detection performed by the light sensor (Element 27, [0077]), wherein the insertion component includes: a first light guide which guides, from the base end to the tip end, the first light and the second light emitted from the light source so that the first light and the second light are emitted from the tip end as illumination light (Element 12, [0036]); and a second light guide member which guides, from the tip end to the base end, reflected light of the illumination light emitted from the tip end (Element 13, [0036]), the light sensor is configured to receive the reflected light guided by the second light guide member ([0067]), and the controller is configured to control the light source based on an intensity of the reflected light received by the light sensor to stop emission of at least one of the first light or the second light ([0077] [0096] [0097]); and wherein the controller compares, with a threshold value, a relative value of an intensity of the reflected light of a predetermined wavelength received by the light sensor to an intensity of the reflected light of the predetermined wavelength when the tip end is inserted into the subject, and when the relative value is higher than the threshold value, the controller stops the emission of the at least one of the first light or the second light ([0097] [0098] [0127], see arguments above as well)
wherein the predetermined wavelength is a peak wavelength of the second light ([0070]-[0072]), and the controller stops emission of the second light when the relative value is higher than the threshold value ([0077] [0096]-[0098] [0127])
wherein the light sensor includes: a filter which transmits light of the predetermined wavelength (Element 36); and a sensor which is sensitive to the predetermined wavelength and receives light that has passed through the filter ([0069]-[0072])
wherein the light sensor includes a sensor which is sensitive to a wavelength band including peak wavelengths of the first light and the second light ([0069]-[0072])
wherein the light sensor includes a plurality of sensors which are respectively sensitive to different wavelength bands (Elements 37a-c, [0068]-[0072]), and the plurality of sensors include :a first sensor which is sensitive to a peak wavelength of the first light; and a second sensor which is sensitive to a peak wavelength of the second light ([0070]-[0072])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of JP2016/067373 to Morimoto (hereinafter “Morimoto”).
In regards to claim 7, Yoshino teaches wherein the light source includes: a first light source which emits third light (Element 31c); a second light source which emits the second light (Element 31b). However, Yoshino does not disclose a wavelength converter including a fluorescent substance which absorbs a part of the third light and emits fourth light having a hue different from a hue of the third light, and the wavelength converter is disposed in an optical path of the third light, and emits, as the first light, at least a part of combined light of the part of the third light and the fourth light when the third light enters the wavelength converter. Morimoto also discloses an endoscope system with multiple light sources comprising a wavelength converter including a fluorescent substance which absorbs a part of the third light and emits fourth light having a hue different from a hue of the third light (Element 53), and the wavelength converter is disposed in an optical path of the third light, and emits, as the first light, at least a part of combined light of the part of the third light and the fourth light when the third light enters the wavelength converter ([0037]-[0039]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshino to include the wavelength converter such as that taught by Morimoto in order to perform blood vessel observation of the surface layer of the living tissue in detail as suggested by Morimoto in [0044]).
In regards to claim 8, Yoshino does not disclose that the light source further includes a filter which transmits light of a specific wavelength included in the combined light, and the light source emits, as the first light, the light which has passed through the filter. However, Morimoto discloses an endoscope system with multiple light sources wherein the light source further includes a filter which transmits light of a specific wavelength included in the combined light (Element 82, [0072]-[0073]), and the light source emits, as the first light, the light which has passed through the filter ([0072]-[0073]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshino to include the filter such as that taught by Morimoto in order to perform blood vessel observation of the surface layer of the living tissue in detail as suggested by Morimoto in [0044]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino and Morimoto as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0084980 to Watanabe et al (hereinafter “Watanabe”). Regarding claim 9, Yoshino teaches wherein the first light source is a blue laser light source (Element 31c); however, Yoshino does not teach that the second light source is a violet laser light source. Watanabe discloses an endoscope system with multiple light sources wherein the second light source is a violet laser light source (Element 10D, [0020]). It would have been obvious to modify Yoshino and Morimoto to include the second light source as a violet laser light source such as that taught by Watanabe in order to scan for a detailed observation of vascular abnormalities such as that suggested in [0003]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of Watanabe. Yoshino discloses that the first light is green light (Element 31b), however, Yoshino does not teach that the second light is violet light. Watanabe discloses an endoscope system with multiple light sources wherein the second light is violet light (Element 10D, [0020]). It would have been obvious to modify Yoshino and Morimoto to include the second light violet light such as that taught by Watanabe in order to scan for a detailed observation of vascular abnormalities such as that suggested in [0003]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL JAMES CAREY whose telephone number is (571)270-7235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8am-5pm).
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, Michael Carey can be reached at 571-270-7235. 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.
/MICHAEL J CAREY/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795