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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to claim 1, the addition of new claims 24-25, and the amendment to paragraphs [0019] and [0073] of the written specification in the response filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-25 are now pending in the application.
Claims 15-23 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-14 and 24-25 are under examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, in fig. 3 (elected species III), the “controllable optical phase shifters that include integrated waveguides” introduced in claim 1, “the controllable optical phase shifters comprise TiN heaters above the integrated waveguides” introduced in new claim 24, and “the controllable optical phase shifters comprise liquid crystal phase shift elements above the integrated waveguides” introduced in new claim 25, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, the recitation “controllable phase shifters that include integrated waveguides” in line 5-6 appears to be new matter. The term “the integrated waveguides” is mentioned only paragraphs [0019 and 0073]. The figures do not show the newly added features recited in [0019 and 0073], especially fig. 3 which is the elected invention III.
Neither of these two paragraphs mentions that the phase shifters (TiN heaters or liquid crystal phase shift elements) include “integrated waveguides”. It is unclear whether the integrated waveguides are part of the endoscope (same as the fiber optics of the endoscope) since fiber optics are waveguides or the TiN or liquid crystal phase shift elements themselves also include waveguides. [0019 and 0073] are unclear and vague and only suggest that the phase shifters are a separate structure external to waveguides, wherein the phase shifters just phase the light. The phased control of the light (in other words the light that passed through the waveguides) are a result of the external laser phase control that is the phase shifters. This is further reinforced by the recitation of the term “above the integrated waveguides” which evidences that the phase shifters are separate from the waveguides which could or could not be the same as the fiber optics that deliver the laser light in the endoscope. As such, the original disclosure does not evidence that Applicant had possession of the claim feature “controllable optical phase shifters that include integrated waveguides.” The claim is examined as best understood based on disclosure from paragraphs [0019 and 0073]. As such, for purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the recitation “wherein phase control of light in the endoscope is controlled using controllable optical phase shifters that include integrated waveguides” is interpreted as as –wherein phased control of light in integrated waveguides is controlled using controllable optical phase shifters whose light goes through to an endoscope head; -- which makes the claim language consistent with [0019] of the written specification.
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 1-14 and 24-25 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.
Claim 1 has introduced the limitation “phase shifters that include integrated waveguides” in line 6. The written specification never introduces the term “integrated waveguides.” The term is mentioned only in paragraphs [0019 and 0073]. Neither of these two paragraphs mentions that the phase shifters (TiN heaters or liquid crystal phase shift elements) include “integrated waveguides”. It is unclear whether the integrated waveguides are part of the endoscope (same as the fiber optics of the endoscope) since fiber optics are waveguides or the TiN or liquid crystal phase shift elements themselves also include waveguides. [0019 and 0073] are unclear and vague and only suggest that the phase shifters are a separate structure external to waveguides, wherein the phase shifters just phase the light. The phased control of the light (in other words the light that passed through the waveguides) are a result of the external laser phase control that is the phase shifters. This is further reinforced by the recitation of the term “above the integrated waveguides” which evidences that the phase shifters are separate from the waveguides which could or could not be the same as the fiber optics that deliver the laser light in the endoscope. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, so for purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the recitation “wherein phase control of light in the endoscope is controlled using controllable optical phase shifters that include integrated waveguides” as –wherein phased control of light in integrated waveguides is controlled using controllable optical phase shifters whose light goes through to an endoscope head; -- which makes the claim language consistent with [0019] of the written specification.
Claim 24 and 25, both recite the term “above the integrated waveguides” in line 2 of each of claims 24 and 25. The term “above” is unclear and vague, and confusing. The written specification mentions this recited language in paragraphs [0019 and 0073] only. The figures, including the elected species III drawn to fig. 3, does not show the location of the claimed phase shifters, the integrated waveguides, nor the locational relationship of the claimed phase shifters relative to the integrates waveguides. As such, one skilled in the art is unable to determine what is meant by “above the integrated waveguides.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and the addition of new claims 24-25 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. Despite the rejections under 35 USC 112 discussed above, the amendments have technically changed the scope of the claim resulting in new grounds of rejection such that the Bukesov and the Swanson references remain applicable. The combination of Bukesov in view of Swanson remains relevant since they, in combination, disclose the limitations originally presented in the application. However, in light of the new amendments, a new ground of rejection further in view of newly found reference is laid out below.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that Swanson’s photonic phased array 112 is not configured for ablation is unpersuasive. Firstly, the ablation is disclosed by Bukenov. The phased array of Swanson similarly teaches propagation of laser light. Applicant argued that there is no teaching in Swanson that the photonic array 112 emits a beam that is configured to ablate tissue. Examiner rebuts by pointing to [0026] of Swanson where the propagation of laser light using a laser via laser source 102 [0014, 0017, 0018], the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Also, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regards to Applicant’s arguments that Swanson teaches away from using waveguides in [0013-0014] and that Swanson does not use a waveguide feed structure. Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that Swanson teaches away. Examiner is relying on Swanson to teach the optical phased array. Applicant is attaching Swanson individually in that, Applicant is ignoring the combination of Bukenov combined with Swanson to include only Swanson’s optical phased array. Bukenov would still function as intended and would still work. Also, in [0013] Swanson is simply pointing out disadvantages that Swanson finds to be not desirable to Swanson due to the creation of sparse apertures. That does not mean, use of a waveguide would destroy or make inoperable the optical phased array of Swanson. Moreover, Swanson would not make the endoscope of Bukenov inoperable. In fact, it would provide advantages as laid out below. Examiner also points out that a single mode fiber is a type of waveguide. Given that Applicant has not provided any information regarding the claimed integrated waveguides (see 112a and 112b rejections above) which could broadly read on any optical fiber that propagates light, Swanson’s single mode fiber 312 reasonably meets the limitation of waveguide. That is, it is unclear what the distinguishing features of Applicant’s waveguides and that of Bukenov or Swanson’s are given that there is a dearth of information and structure recited in Applicant’s original disclosure.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bukesov US 2021/0038310 in view of Swanson US 2019/0006753 further in view of Tsuda JP 2019152707 A (reliance on Machine English Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Bukesov discloses an endoscopic ablation system 1000A (see figs. 9A-10B), comprising an endoscope 910, an ablation optical pathway that includes integrated waveguides 108,912,1010,1020 (laser fibers 108,912 herein called 108,912, figs. 10A-10B, [0105-0112] that deliver light to an endoscope head which is the distal end of the endoscope 910) with the endoscope 910, , the ablation optical pathway 912 is configured to emit a beam (at the tip 912, note Bukesov in [0102] discloses the ablation optical pathway 912 is an optical fiber 108 that extends along a working channel 913 within the elongated body of the endoscope 910 and in “some examples” 912,108 is a separate structure which means that Bukesov inherently contemplates that 912,108 is fixedly position in the working channel 913 as well) in selectively controllable direction, the beam being configured to alate tissue 122 (fig. 10A, [0058,0072,0076,0079,0081], an imaging system 916 with the endoscope 910, the imaging system 916 configured to capture images in the vicinity of the endoscope 910 and/or the ablation optical pathway (the vicinity of the endoscope 910 and the ablation optical pathway is interpreted to be the target 122 in the vicinity of the front/tip portion of the endoscope 910 as seen in fig. 10A).
Although, Bukesov discloses an ablation optical pathway defined by 108,912 in the working channel 913 to emit a beam from a semiconductor laser source 1020 [0070] to the distal end of the endoscope 910, Bukesov does not explicitly disclose the ablation optical pathway 108,912 is an ablation optical phased array (AOPA). Also, Bukesov does not expressly disclose wherein phased control of light (from the semiconductor laser source) is controlled using controllable optical shifters.
Swanson, however, teaches an ablation optical phased array (AOPA) 112,302 (112 is a photonic phased array with set/fixed optics 106,108 that are not movable nor adjustable and only adjusts the phase of light which meets the definition of an optical phased array. Swanson teaches 302 to be an optical phased array per [0022] via the closely packed antenna elements) in an analogous endoscope (figs. 1A,3A, [0015-0018, 0022-0026]) that includes analogous waveguide 312 (single mode fibers are a type of waveguide used for laser beam propagation [0026], the optical phased array being configured to emit an analogous beam 110 (laser beam 110 via 102) in a selectively controllable direction (figs. 1A, 3A-3B), providing an optical phased array that uses a free space illumination to propagate laser beams to provide a phased array illumination on a target site. This comes with the benefits of reduced size, low-cost, wider scanning angles, high-speed-device density optical phased arrays.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the ablation optical pathway that includes integrated waveguides 108,912 of Bukesov to be an optical phased array 112,302,312 as taught by Swanson in order to have provided a low-cost endoscope that has an improved ablation optical phased array (AOPA) that has a reduced size for placement in the endoscope and that uses a free space illumination and wider scanning angles to propagate laser beams to provide a phased array illumination on a target site such that the beam can be steered in various dimensions (Swanson, [0013 et seq. 0014 et seq. 0028]).
Bukesov in view of Swanson discloses the invention as discussed above. Bukesov in view of Swanson does not expressly disclose wherein phased control of light (from the semiconductor laser source 1020 of Bukenov) is controlled using controllable optical phase shifters to phase light through the waveguides.
Tsdua teaches phased control of light from an analogous semiconductor laser source proximal to an analogous integrated waveguides 110 (waveguide array 110) is controlled using controllable optical phase shifters 111 (LCOS-SLM 105 which is a liquid crystal spatial light modulator [e.g.18], see page 3, paragraphs 4-5, page 4, paragraph 1-3, figs. 3-4) is also an optical phase shifter 105 that is positioned along the optical axis of the laser beam of laser 103, page 5, paragraphs 3-5), whose light goes through to propagate along an optical axis of various lenses toward a target (page 7, paragraphs 2-7, page 8, paragraphs 1-4, figs. 3-5), providing a waveguide array that includes phase shifters that can control the phase of light propagating through each waveguide of the waveguide array to allow changing of the scanning angle to enable wide-angle scanning and increasing resolution (Abstract, page 8, paragraph 7, page 9, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the integrated waveguide of Bukesov in view of Swanson with the integrated waveguides and optical phase shifters to phase control of light through the waveguides as taught by Tsuda in order to have provided an a low-cost endoscope that has an improved ablation optical phased array (AOPA) that can allow changing of the scanning angle to enable wide-angle scanning and increasing resolution (Tsuda, Abstract, page 8, paragraph 7, page 9, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 2, Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above. Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda further discloses the ablation optical phased array 112,302 comprises plural antenna elements as taught by Swanson [0016-0018,0020,0022] which provide a wider scanning angle [0018].
Regarding claim 3, Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above. Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda does not explicitly disclose a control system that controls inputs to the antenna elements to perform beam steering.
Swanson further teaches a control system 126 that controls inputs to the antenna elements [0018] to perform beam steering [0017-0018,0020,0022,0027-0028], providing an electrically controlled phase array capable of scanning along various axes and dimensions [0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provided the endoscope ablation system of Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda with the control system 126 that controls inputs to the antenna elements to perform beam steering as further taught by Swanson in order to have provided an improved endoscope ablation system that uses a free space illumination and wider scanning angles to control propagation of laser beams to provide a phased array illumination on a target site such that the beam can be steered in various dimensions and axes (Swanson, [0013 et seq. 0014 et seq. 0028]).
Regarding claim 4, Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda further discloses the control system 126 controls phases of signals input to the antenna elements to perform the beam steering as taught by Swanson [0019,0022-0028].
Regarding claim 6, Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bukesov in view of Swanson the AOPA utilizes 2D arrays of optical antennas as taught by Swanson [0018,0028].
Regarding claim 7, Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda further discloses the AOPA 112,302 is in or on the endoscope 304 as taught by Swanson [0017,0022].
Regarding claim 8, Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bukesov further discloses the imaging system 916 is in or on the endoscope 910. Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda further discloses the AOPA 112,302 is in or on the endoscope 304 as taught by Swanson [0017,0022].
Regarding claim 9 Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bukesov further discloses the imaging system 916 comprises one of a CCD imager [0104,0108].
Regarding claim 10, Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bukesov further discloses an illumination system 914,1030 with the endoscope 910 (figs. 9A-10A, [0101-0108]).
Regarding claim 17, Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bukesov further discloses the ablation optical pathway 108,912 is in the head of the endoscope 910 and the imaging system 916 comprises a separate imager (CCD) at the head of the endoscope 912. Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda further discloses the AOPA comprises an OPA 302 as taught by Swanson [0022] and the OPA [302] is on a separate chip of its own located at the head of the endoscope 304 as taught by Swanson (figs. 1A-3B).
It follows that, the combination of Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda renders obvious “an OPA in the head of the endoscope and the imaging system comprises a separate imager at the head of the endoscope, and the OPA and the separate imager are formed on different chips.”
Regarding claim 24, Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above. Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda further discloses the controllable optical phase shifters 111 comprise TiN heaters above the (in front of the) integrated waveguides 110 (fig. 5, page 7, paragraphs 4 and 7, TiN heater, titanium nitride heater).
Regarding claim 25, Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above. Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda further discloses the controllable optical phase shifters comprise liquid crystal phase shift elements 105 (above the integrated waveguides (proximal to laser fibers but distal to source of laser 103, LCOS-SLM 105 which is a liquid crystal spatial light modulator [e.g.18], see page 3, paragraphs 4-5, page 4, paragraph 1-3, figs. 3-4 is also an optical phase shifter 105 that is positioned along the optical axis of an analogous semiconductor laser 103 generating laser beam, page 5, paragraphs 3-5).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bukesov US 2021/0038310 in view of Swanson US 2019/0006753 in view of Tsuda JP 2019152707 A (reliance on Machine English Translation) further in view of Finn US 2021/0331273.
Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda does not explicitly disclose the AOPA forms the beam having a spot size of about 7 micrometers.
Finn teaches an analogous beam having a spot size of about 7 micrometers (Finn teaches spot size of 7 micrometers, [0030]) (absence the definition of “about” in Applicant’s disclosure, the Office is interpreting the term “about” to be +/-5 micrometers) formed by an analogous phased-array [0043,0044], providing a beam that has a spot size such that it can impinge upon the target site to optimize resolution (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provided the beam of the endoscopic ablation system 1000A of Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda with the spot size of about 7 micrometers as taught by Finn in order to have provided an endoscopic ablation system that propagates an improved beam that has a spot size such that it can impinge upon the target site to optimize resolution (Finn, Abstract).
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bukesov US 2021/0038310 in view of Swanson US 2019/0006753 in view of Tsuda JP 2019152707 A (reliance on Machine English Translation) further in view of Gilreath US 2014/0333743.
Regarding claim 11, Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda does not explicitly disclose a movement system for controlling movement of the endoscope.
Gilreath teaches a movement system 104,105 (handle 104 for maneuvering shaft 106 and knob and/or switches 105 [0452]) for controlling movement of an analogous endoscope 102 (control bending of the bending section 110 [0452]), providing an improved endoscopic ablation system that has an improved handle for controlling maneuvering and bending of the shaft and distal end of the endoscope for enhanced viewing and positioning of the distal end near a target site [0452].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provided the endoscopic ablation system 1000A of Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda with the a movement system as taught by Gilreath in order to have provided an improved endoscopic ablation system that has an improved handle for controlling maneuvering and bending of the shaft and distal end of the endoscope for enhanced viewing and positioning of the distal end near a target site(Gilreath, [0452]).
Regarding claim 12, , Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above.
, Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda does not explicitly disclose a temperature control system with the endoscope.
Gilreath teaches a temperature control system 3250,3270 with an analogous endoscope 102 (figs. 32A-32B, [0731-0732], providing an improved endoscope tip that has a temperature control system that acts as a heat sink such that heat generated by the components inside of the tip may be transferred causing a lowering of the temperature of the tip of the endoscope [0732].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provided the tip of the endoscopic ablation system 1000A of , Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda with the temperature control system as taught by Gilreath in order to have provided a safer endoscopic ablation system having an improved endoscope tip that has a temperature control system that acts as a heat sink such that heat generated by the components inside of the tip may be transferred causing a lowering of the temperature of the tip of the endoscope [0732].
Regarding claim 14, Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above.
, Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda does not explicitly disclose the system is tethered via power/control lines, optical fibers, and/or fluid cooling lines to optical supply and control, electronic control, and fluid supply outside of the subject, human, animal, or area of operation.
Gilreath teaches an analogous system 100 that is tethered via 102,104,114,199 [0452-0454] power/control lines, optical fibers, and/or fluid cooling lines to optical supply and control, electrical control, and fluid supply [0731-0732] outside of the subject, human, animal, or area of opening (via 102,104, 199 which are all located outside of the subject, human, animal, or area of operation, see fig. 1A), providing tethering to main control of the various operations of the endoscopic system to conduct endoscopic surgery [00452-0456].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provided the endoscopic ablation system 1000A of , Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda with system being tethered via power/control lines, optical fibers, and/or fluid cooling lines to optical supply and control, electronic control, and fluid supply (102,104,114,199) outside of the subject, human, animal, or area of operation as taught by Gilreath in order to have provided an improved endoscopic ablation system having tethering to main control of the various operations of the endoscopic system to more efficiently and safely conduct endoscopic surgery [00452-0456].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bukesov US 2021/0038310 in view of Swanson US 2019/0006753 in view of Tsuda JP 2019152707 A (reliance on Machine English Translation) further in view of Pyun US 2020/0300702.
Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda does not explicitly disclose further comprising artificial/neural network circuitry for automated control of ablation based on automated image recognition of some tissues.
Pyun teaches artificial/neural network circuitry [0021-0023,0095,0103,0253,0270] for automated control of ablation [0026] based on automated image recognition of some tissues (unit may use spectrum data, image data, and acoustic data, [0244]), providing artificial neural network circuitry in the controller to conduct comparison value of data sets to determine if a target site is diseased or not (Abstract, [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provided endoscopic ablation system of Bukesov in view of Swanson in view of Tsuda with the artificial/neural network circuitry for automated control of ablation based on automated image recognition of some tissues as taught by Pyun in order to have provided an improved endoscopic ablation system having an artificial neural network circuitry in its controller in order to conduct comparison value of data sets to determine if a target site is diseased or not (Pyun, Abstract, [0095]).
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 ALIREZA NIA whose telephone number is (571)270-3076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM - 4 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, Alford W Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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.
/ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights