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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is still invoked.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed September 19, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of Claims 6-9, 11 & 16-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to the claims.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of Claims 6-9, 11 & 16-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed September 19, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of Claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9, filed September 19, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of Claims 16-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Claims 16-20 should be allowable insofar that they are dependent from an amended and argued claim (i.e., Claims 1 and/or 13), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 16 is an independent claim and thus does not require the amended limitations in Claims 1 and/or 13. As such, Claim 16 with dependent Claims 17-20 are rejected as being anticipated by Halderman.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the light guiding element comprises the proximal tapered end an a more distal cylindrical portion [emphasis added]” on Lines 3-4. This appears to be a typographical error and should read “and” instead of “an”. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 & 11 are 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.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 recites the limitation “a central area of the endoscopic field of view” on Lines 9-10. It is unclear whether this “central area of the endoscopic field of view” is the same as the “central area of a field of view of the endoscope” previously recited on Lines 3-4 of Claim 1, or a separate, different central area. For the purpose of examination, “a central area of the endoscopic field of view” is being interpreted as “the central area of the endoscopic field of view”.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 recites the limitation “a peripheral area of a field of view of the endoscope [emphasis added]” on Lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this “peripheral area of a field of view” is the same as the “peripheral area of the field of view” previously recited on Line 6 of Claim 1, or a separate, different peripheral area of a field of view. For the purpose of examination, “a peripheral area of a field of view of the endoscope” is being interpreted as “the peripheral area of the field of view of the endoscope [emphasis added]”.
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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Halderman (US 2024/0115120).
Regarding Claim 16, Halderman discloses an endoscopic imaging system (Fig. 1, 100; [0027]) comprising:
an endoscope (Fig. 1, 106; [0027]) comprising a shaft (see Fig. 1), a light guide (Fig. 1, 104; [0053]) extending along at least a portion of the shaft to a distal end of the shaft (see Fig. 1), and a light input (Fig. 7B, 110; [0049]);
a light source (Fig. 7B, 750; [0053]) comprising:
a first illumination element (Fig. 7B, a substantially central 702 and 114; [0053]) providing first illumination light into the light input (Fig. 7B, a light emitted from the central 702; [0053]), which is emitted by the light guide to illuminate a central area of a field of view of the endoscope (Figs. 4A & 7B, as light input angle impacts the intensity in a radial direction of light output and the light emitted from the central 702 has a light input angle of substantially 0°, the light emitted from the central 702 will illuminate a central area of a field of view; [0039] & [0053]); and
a second illumination element (Fig. 7B, a substantially angled 704 and 116; [0053]) providing second illumination to the light input (Fig. 7B, a light emitted from the angled 704; [0053]) and arranged relative to the first illumination element such that the second illumination enters the light input at a substantially different angle from the first illumination (see Fig. 7B), which is emitted by the light guide to illuminate a peripheral area of the field of view (Figs. 4B-4E & 7B, as the light input angle impacts the intensity in the radial direction of the light output and the light emitted from the angled 704 has a light input angle of not 0°, the light emitted from the angled 704 will illuminate a peripheral area of a field of view; [0039] & [0053]), the second illumination element having an illumination level adjustable separately from that of the first illumination element ([0052]);
a controller (Fig. 1, 124; [0052]) coupled to the first and second illumination elements ([0052]) and operable to adjust at least one of the first and second illumination elements to improve an evenness of illumination over an endoscopic field of view ([0049] & [0052]).
Regarding Claim 17, Halderman discloses the endoscopic imaging system of Claim 16. Halderman further discloses wherein the first and second illumination elements each comprise a light source (Fig. 7B, 702/704; [0053]) and a light directing element arranged for directing the illumination from the light source to the light input at their respective different angles (Fig. 7B, 114/116; [0053]).
Regarding Claim 18, Halderman discloses the endoscopic imaging system of Claim 17. Halderman further discloses wherein the light directing elements are lenses ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 19, Halderman discloses the endoscopic imaging system of Claim 17. Halderman further discloses wherein at least one of the light directing elements comprises a parabolic or elliptical mirror ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 20, Halderman discloses the endoscopic imaging system of Claim 17. Halderman further discloses wherein the controller is operable to automatically adjust at least one of the illumination elements based on a first illumination level detected in the central area of the field of view ([0052]) and a second illumination level detected in the peripheral area of the field of view ([0052]).
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halderman (US 2024/0115120) in view of Ehrhardt et al. (hereinafter "Ehrhardt") (US 2008/0055924).
Regarding Claim 1, Halderman discloses an endoscopic illuminator (Fig. 7B, 750; [0053]) comprising:
a first illumination element (Fig. 7B, a substantially central 702 and 114; [0053]) adapted for coupling a first illumination light (Fig. 7B, a light emitted from the central 702; [0053]) into a light input (Fig. 7B, 104; [0053]) of an endoscope (Fig. 1, 106; [0027]) for illuminating a central area of a field of view of the endoscope (Figs. 4A & 7B, as light input angle impacts the intensity in a radial direction of light output and the light emitted from the central 702 has a light input angle of substantially 0°, the light emitted from the central 702 will illuminate a central area of a field of view; [0039] & [0053]); and
a second illumination element (Fig. 7B, a substantially angled 704 and 116; [0053]) adapted for coupling second illumination light (Fig. 7B, a light emitted from the angled 704; [0053]) to the light input for illuminating a peripheral area of the field of view (Figs. 4B-4E & 7B, as the light input angle impacts the intensity in the radial direction of the light output and the light emitted from the angled 704 has a light input angle of not 0°, the light emitted from the angled 704 will illuminate a peripheral area of a field of view; [0039] & [0053]), arranged relative to the first illumination element such that the second illumination light enters the light input at a substantially different angle from the first illumination light (see Fig. 7B), and having an illumination level adjustable separately from that of the first illumination element ([0052]).
Halderman fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light input of the endoscope comprising a cylindrical portion and a tapered end portion; and wherein the first illumination light is coupled into the tapered end portion.
However, Ehrhardt teaches an endoscopic illuminator (Fig. 1, 10; [0054]) comprising:
a light input of an endoscope (Fig. 1, 16; [0055]), the light input comprising a tapered end portion (Fig. 4A, 76; [0066]) and a cylindrical portion (Fig. 4A, 82; [0066]);
an illumination element (Fig. 1, 14; [0055]) adapted to couple illumination light into the tapered end portion of the light guide input ([0070]).
The advantage of the tapered proximal end of the light input is to minimize the loss of light intensity between the illumination element and the light input (Ehrhardt; [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the light input as disclosed by Halderman, to include the tapered proximal end taught by Ehrhardt, to minimize the loss of light intensity between the illumination element and the light input (Ehrhardt; [0034]).
Regarding Claim 2, Halderman, as previously modified by Ehrhardt, teaches the endoscopic illuminator of Claim 1. Halderman further discloses wherein the first and second illumination elements each comprise a light source (Fig. 7B, 702/704; [0053]) and a light directing element arranged for directing light from the light source to the light input at their respective different angles (Fig. 7B, 114/116; [0053]).
Regarding Claim 3, Halderman, as previously modified by Ehrhardt, teaches the endoscopic illuminator of Claim 2. Halderman further discloses wherein the light directing elements are lenses ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 4, Halderman, as previously modified by Ehrhardt, teaches the endoscopic illuminator of Claim 2. Halderman further discloses wherein at least one of the light directing elements comprises a parabolic or elliptical mirror ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 5, Halderman, as previously modified by Ehrhardt, teaches the endoscopic illuminator of Claim 2. Halderman further discloses wherein the light directing elements of the first and second illumination elements are arranged for collecting light from their respective light source and directing a converging field of light into the light input centered around the first or second angle, respectively ([0053]).
Regarding Claim 6, Halderman, as previously modified by Ehrhardt, teaches the endoscopic illuminator of Claim 1. Halderman further discloses wherein the first and second illumination elements are adapted to couple light into the light input of the endoscope, wherein the light input of the endoscope is selected from a group consisting of: an input of a light post of the endoscope, a light port of the endoscope, an input of a light cable of the endoscope (Fig. 7B, 104 is an optical fiber; [0053]), and an input of a light pipe of the endoscope.
Regarding Claim 7, Halderman, as previously modified by Ehrhardt, teaches the endoscopic illuminator of Claim 1. Halderman further discloses a controller (Fig. 1, 124; [0052]) coupled to the first and second illumination elements ([0052]) and operable to automatically adjust the illumination levels of the first and second illumination elements to improve the evenness of illumination over the field of view of the endoscope ([0049] & [0052]).
Regarding Claim 8, Halderman, as previously modified by Ehrhardt, teaches the endoscopic illuminator of Claim 7. Halderman further discloses wherein illumination at the edges of the endoscopic field of view is automatically decreased relative to illumination at the center of the field of view when the endoscope images along a lumen, and wherein illumination at the edges of the endoscopic field of view is automatically increased relative to illumination at the center of the field of view when the endoscope images a flat or convex scene (Figs. 1 & 7B, as 124 automatically adjusts the intensities of 702/704 based on topology measurements of a target, 704 would automatically adjust when the topology of the target was a lumen and would automatically adjust when the topology of the target was not a lumen; [0052]).
Regarding Claim 9, Halderman, as previously modified by Ehrhardt, teaches the endoscopic illuminator of Claim 7. Halderman further discloses wherein an optical axis of the illumination element providing illumination to a central area of the endoscopic field of view is oriented at a slight angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the light input into which the illumination is coupled (see Fig. 7B).
Regarding Claim 10, Halderman, as previously modified by Ehrhardt, teaches the endoscopic illuminator of Claim 1. Halderman further discloses at least one additional illumination element (Fig. 7B, a substantially angled 702; [0053]).
Regarding Claim 11, Halderman, as previously modified by Ehrhardt, teaches the endoscopic illuminator of Claim 1. Halderman further discloses wherein at least two of the illumination elements provide illumination to a peripheral area of a field of view of the endoscope (Figs. 4B-4E & 7B, as the light input angle impacts the intensity in the radial direction of the light output and the light emitted from the angled 702 has a light input angle of not 0°, the light emitted from the angled 702 will illuminate a peripheral area of a field of view along with the angled 704; [0039] & [0053]).
Regarding Claim 12, Halderman, as previously modified by Ehrhardt, teaches the endoscopic illuminator of Claim 10. Halderman further discloses wherein the illumination elements are LEDs ([0049]).
Regarding Claim 13, Halderman discloses a method of providing illumination for an endoscope ([0068]), comprising:
coupling first illumination light (Fig. 7B, a light emitted from a central 702; [0053]) into a proximal end (Fig. 7B, 110; [0049]) of a light guiding element (Fig. 7B, 104; [0053]) for an endoscope (Fig. 1, 106; [0027]), wherein the coupled illumination light is centered along a first angle relative to the light guiding element (see Fig. 7B);
illuminating a central area of a field of view of the endoscope from a distal end of the light guiding element with the first illumination light ([0039] & [0053]);
while coupling the first illumination light, coupling second illumination light (Fig. 7B, a light emitted from the angled 704; [0053]) into the light guiding element centered along a second angle substantially different from the first angle (see Fig. 7B);
illuminating a peripheral area of the field of view with the second illumination light ([0039] & [0053]); and
adjusting an illumination level of the second illumination light relative to that of the first illumination light to improve evenness of illumination in the field of view ([0052]).
Halderman fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light guiding element comprises a proximal tapered end and a more distal cylindrical portion; and wherein the first illumination light and the second illumination light are coupled into the tapered end of the light guiding element.
However, Ehrhardt teaches an endoscopic illuminator (Fig. 1, 10; [0054]) comprising:
a light guiding element (Fig. 1, 16; [0055]), the light guiding element comprising a proximal tapered end (Fig. 4A, 76; [0066]) and a distal cylindrical portion (Fig. 4A, 82; [0066]);
a first illumination element (Fig. 3, a first 72; [0065]) adapted to couple a first illumination light into the proximal tapered end ([0069]); and
a second illumination element (Fig. 3, a second 72; [0065]) adapted to couple a second illumination light into the proximal tapered end ([0069]).
The advantage of the proximal tapered end of the light guiding element is to minimize the loss of light intensity between the illumination element and the light input (Ehrhardt; [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the light guiding element as disclosed by Halderman, to include the proximal tapered end taught by Ehrhardt, to minimize the loss of light intensity between the illumination element and the light input (Ehrhardt; [0034]).
Regarding Claim 14, Halderman, as previously modified by Ehrhardt, teaches the method of Claim 13. Halderman further discloses detecting a first illumination level in the central area of the field of view and detecting a second illumination level in the peripheral area of the field of view ([0052]); and
based on the first and second illumination levels, automatically adjusting the illumination level of the first or second illumination light ([0052]).
Regarding Claim 15, Halderman, as previously modified by Ehrhardt, teaches the method of Claim 13. Halderman further discloses wherein coupling the first illumination light into the proximal end of the light guiding element comprises directing the first illumination light at the light guide element with a first lens directed along the first angle (Fig. 7B, 114; [0053]); and
wherein coupling the second illumination light into the proximal end of the light guiding element comprises directing the second illumination light at the light guide element with a second lens directed along the second angle (Fig. 7B, 116; [0053]).
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 STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
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.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795