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 .
Restriction
Applicants’ election of claims 1-9 without traverse is acknowledged and made final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/16/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Leiner (US 5554100).
Regarding claim 1, Leiner discloses endoscope (arthroscope 100) comprising:
a plurality of optical fibers (illumination fiber 510; FIG. 7A, annotated below) each having a proximal end and a distal end;
at least one camera (Optical system can be connected directly to the video camera optics for viewing by the surgical team. FIG. 9) coupled to the proximal ends of the plurality of optical fibers; and
a sleeve (outer tube 310; FIGS. 6A-7B) enveloping the plurality of optical fibers (Fig. 7B) proximate to the distal ends and repositionable along the length of the plurality of optical fibers (The fibers are inserted within the tube 310), such that the sleeve is configured to control an angle of bend for each of the plurality of optical fibers as the optical fibers advance past the sleeve (optical fiber orientating shim 330 along with the tube 310 orient the angle of the fibers 510; FIG. 7B; col. 5, lines 34-66).
PNG
media_image1.png
643
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Leiner discloses wherein the plurality of optical fibers are uncoupled to one another (Fibers 510 are parallel and are uncoupled to one another. FIG. 7A).
Regarding claim 3, Leiner discloses wherein the distal ends of the plurality of fiber optics define an aggregate circumference perpendicular to the length of the plurality of fiber optics (The plurality of optical fibers define an aggregate circumference perpendicular to the length of the plurality of fiber optics; FIG. 7A annotated), wherein the aggregate circumference is variable based on the position of the sleeve with respect to the distal ends and the angle of bend for each of the plurality of optical fibers (As seen from FIG. 7A, the aggregate circumference is variable based on the position of the sleeve with respect to the distal ends and the angle of bend for each of the plurality of optical fibers).
Regarding claim 4, Leiner discloses wherein a minimum size for the aggregate circumference is 7.85 mm (Proximal entrance end 515 of fiber optic bundle 500 (See FIG. 9) ranges from about 2-2.5 mm; FIG. 9; The circumference is 2 * pi * radius which is about 7.85 mm.), and a maximum size for the aggregate circumference is 3.14 cm (Based on size of fiber circumference, FIG. 7A, maximum aggregate circumference is about 4 cm).
Regarding claim 5, Leiner discloses wherein the sleeve further defines a plurality of apertures through an inner surface of the sleeve to an outer surface of the sleeve (Proximal entrance aperture is about 2-2.5 mm; FIGS. 1, 9; col. 7, lines 50-67).
Regarding claim 6, Leiner wherein at least one distal end of the plurality of optical fibers is positioned to pass through an aperture of the plurality of apertures (Proximal entrance aperture of about 2-2.5 mm; FIG. 1; Proximal entrance end 515 of fiber optic bundle 500 (See FIG. 9) ranges from about 2-2.5 mm; FIG. 9; The fibers pass through the apertures.).
Regarding claim 7, Leiner wherein the plurality of apertures are uniformly spaced with respect to each other (In view of FIG. 7B, the apertures for the fibers are uniformly spaced because the fibers are uniformly separated.).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Lei (US 20170127927).
Regarding claim 1, Lei discloses an endoscope (endoscope 10; FIG. 1) comprising:
a plurality of optical fibers (Optic fibers 30 of a bundle 201, 202, 203; FIG. 3) each having a proximal end and a distal end;
at least one camera (imaging device 82; Para [0066]) coupled to the proximal ends of the plurality of optical fibers (FIG. 1); and
a sleeve (outer shaft 17; FIG. 4 outer shaft 17 comprising rigid areas 272, 273; Para [0065]; FIG. 1 ) enveloping the plurality of optical fibers proximate to the distal ends and repositionable along the length of the plurality of optical fibers, such that the sleeve is configured to control an angle of bend for each of the plurality of optical fibers as the optical fibers advance past the sleeve (The inner shaft 16 and the outer shaft 17 each have non-constant cross-sections, which are required in particular for devices for an adjustable viewing angle of the endoscope 10; Para [0065]; distal end of the endoscope has rigid property before insertion of the light-conducting device; abstract).
PNG
media_image2.png
476
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lei discloses wherein the sleeve further defines a plurality of apertures through an inner surface of the sleeve to an outer surface of the sleeve (Apertures with varying cross section; FIG. 1 annotated).
Regarding claim 8, Lei discloses wherein each aperture is configured to control the angle of bend for an optical fiber passing through a corresponding aperture (The inner shaft 16 and the outer shaft 17 each have non-constant cross-sections, which are required in particular for devices for an adjustable viewing angle of the endoscope 10; Para [0065]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiner (US 5554100) in view of Lee (US 6572608).
Regarding claim 9, Leiner does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of optical fibers comprise shape memory optical fibers (optic fiber is contained in a tubular tip, the tubular tip has a pre-bent portion and is constructed of a shape memory material.
Lee is directed to a microsurgical laser (abstract) and teaches wherein the plurality of optical fibers comprise shape memory optical fibers (optic fiber is contained in a tubular tip, the tubular tip has a pre-bent portion and is constructed of a shape memory material. Claim 13; col. 4, lines 37-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leiner to include a shape memory material with the optical fiber in accordance with the teaching of Lee so that the shape of the fiber could be retained after bending the fiber to a direction for directional visualization.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO – 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANKAR R GHIMIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0515. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 PM.
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 on 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.
/SHANKAR RAJ GHIMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
11/16/25