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 amendments to claim 1 in the response filed on 09/05/2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application
Claims 1-20 are examined.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims. The applicant has modified claim 1 to require an integrated cable connector device, limitations heretofore not presented for examination in this application. As such, the scope of the claims was substantially changed and new grounds for rejection are presented.
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) 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10-13, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0008656 to Viering et al. (hereinafter “Viering”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0328063 to Nishio et al. (hereinafter “Nishio”).
Regarding claim 1, Viering discloses an integrated cable connector device for connecting optical and electrical components of an imaging system (102), the device comprising: a first fiber optic ferrule (326, Fig. 3, [0041]-[0042]) dedicated to receiving a first emission of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a first source; a second fiber optic ferrule dedicated to receiving a second emission of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a second source (328, Fig. 3, [0041]-[0042]); and a data connection component configured to receive bidirectional data communications (220, Fig. 2, [0030], [0036]);
However, Nishio teaches of a device wherein the first source (21a, Fig. 1, [0024]) is tuned to emit a different waveband of electromagnetic radiation than the second source (21b, Fig. 1, [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Viering to utilize light sources with different wavebands of electromagnetic radiation, as taught by Nishio. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing light ([0038] of Nishio).
Regarding claim 2, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device of claim 1, and Viering further discloses further comprising a multiconductor that comprises: a first plurality of optical fibers in optical communication with the first fiber optic ferrule (106, Fig. 2, [0021]-[0022]); a second plurality of optical fibers in optical communication with the second fiber optic ferrule (108, Fig. 2, [0021]-[0022]); and a cable in electronic communication with the data connection component, wherein the cable transmits the bidirectional data communications (124, Fig. 2, [0021], [0025]); wherein the first plurality of optical fibers are optically independent from the second plurality of optical fibers (106, 108, Fig. 2, [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 3, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device of claim 2, and Viering further discloses further comprising a lumen (113, Fig. 1, [0021]) of an endoscope (112, Fig. 1, [0025]), wherein the first plurality of optical fibers and the second plurality of optical fibers are physically intermixed within one or more of the multiconductor or the lumen of the endoscope (106, 108, Fig. 2, [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device of claim 3, wherein the first plurality of optical fibers and the second plurality of optical fibers are not optically intermixed such that: the first plurality of optical fibers is dedicated to transmitting the first emission of electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by the first source (106, 108, Fig. 2, [0021]-[0022]); and the second plurality of optical fibers is dedicated to transmitting the second emission of electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by the second source 106, 108, Fig. 2, [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 8, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device device of claim 1, and VIering further discloses wherein the device is a split connector and cable for independently enabling optical and electronic communication between an endoscope and an illumination and visualization controller (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device of claim 1, and Viering further discloses wherein the device is an integrated connector and cable for enabling optical and electronic communication between an endoscope and an illumination and visualization controller (115, Fig. 1, [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Viering, in view of Nishio teaches the device of claim 9.
Viering, in view of Nishio, fails to expressly teach wherein the illumination and visualization controller comprises:an emitter comprising the first source (114, Fig. 1, [0019]), wherein the first source is in optical communication with a first waveguide contact (Fig. 3); the emitter further comprising the second source (114, Fig. 1, [0019]), wherein the second source is in optical communication with a second waveguide contact (Fig. 3); and a controller comprising one or more of a field programmable gate array or a computer (121, Fig. 1, [0027]), wherein the controller is in electronic communication with a data port (122, Fig. 1, [0027]).
Regarding claim 11, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device of claim 10, wherein the first fiber optic ferrule is configured to interface with the first waveguide contact; wherein the second fiber optic ferrule is configured to interface with the second waveguide contact; and wherein the data connection component is configured to interface with the data port (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the device further comprises:a multiconductor comprising a plurality of optical fibers (106, 108, Fig. 2, [0021]-[0022]) and a cable in electronic communication with the data connection component (104, Fig. 2, [0025]); a handpiece of an endoscope (Fig. 1); and a lumen of the endoscope (113, Fig. 1, [0021]).
Regarding claim 13, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the device further comprises a microcontroller unit disposed within the handpiece of the endoscope (121, Fig. 1, [0025]), wherein the cable and the data connection component enable electronic communication between the microcontroller unit and an external controller (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device of claim 12, and Viering further discloses wherein the plurality of optical fibers terminates at a distal end of the lumen of the endoscope (Viering: 106, 108, Fig. 2, [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 18, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device of claim 17, and Viering further discloses wherein a first portion of the plurality of optical fibers is dedicated to transmitting the first emission of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first source from the first fiber optic ferrule to the distal end of the lumen of the endoscope (Viering: 106, 108, Fig. 2, [0021]-[0022]); and wherein a second portion of the plurality of optical fibers is dedicated to transmitting the second emission of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the second source from the second fiber optic ferrule to the distal end of the lumen of the endoscope (Viering: 106, 108, Fig. 2, [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 19, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device of claim 18, and Viering further discloses wherein the first portion and the second portion of the plurality of optical fibers are physically intermixed within the lumen of the endoscope such that each of the first emission of electromagnetic radiation and the second emission of electromagnetic radiation is emitted from the distal end of the lumen of the endoscope with uniform illumination endoscope (Viering: 106, 108, Fig. 2, [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 20, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device of claim 18, wherein a ratio for a quantity of the first portion and a quantity of the second portion of the plurality of optical fibers is optimized based at least in part on a characteristic of the first source and/or a characteristic of the second source, and wherein the ratio comprises at least one or more of:about 1:1 the quantity of the first portion to the quantity of the second portion;about 1.5:1 the quantity of the first portion to the quantity of the second portion;about 2:1 the quantity of the first portion to the quantity of the second portion;about 3:1 the quantity of the first portion to the quantity of the second portion; or about 4:1 the quantity of the first portion to the quantity of the second portion (Viering: 106, 108, Fig. 2, [0021]-[0022]).
Claim(s) 5 , 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0008656 to Viering et al. (hereinafter “Viering”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0328063 to Nishio et al. (hereinafter “Nishio”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0266508 to Deguchi et al. (hereinafter “Deguchi”)
Regarding claim 5, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device of claim 1.
Viering, in view of Nishio, fails to expressly teach wherein the first source emits a plurality of independent pulses of visible electromagnetic radiation, and wherein the first source comprises one or more of:a white light source configured to pulse white light; or a narrowband source configured to pulse narrowband electromagnetic radiation within a visible wavelength range of the electromagnetic spectrum, wherein the narrowband source is configured to pulse electromagnetic radiation within a waveband comprising a width of 30 nm or less.
However, Deguchi teaches of an analogous device wherein the first source emits a plurality of independent pulses of visible electromagnetic radiation ([0040]), and wherein the first source comprises one or more of: a white light source configured to pulse white light ([0040]); or a narrowband source configured to pulse narrowband electromagnetic radiation within a visible wavelength range of the electromagnetic spectrum, wherein the narrowband source is configured to pulse electromagnetic radiation within a waveband comprising a width of 30 nm or less.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Viering, in view of Nishio, to utilize a source in the manner taught by Deguchi. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing normal observation light ([0040] of Deguchi).
Regarding claim 6, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device of claim 1, and Viering further discloses wherein the first source is a white light emitting diode (LED) ([0029]).
Viering, in view of Nishio, fails to expressly teach wherein the first emission of electromagnetic radiation comprises a plurality of independent pulses of white light.
However, Deguchi teaches of an analogous device wherein the first emission of electromagnetic radiation comprises a plurality of independent pulses of white light (Deguchi: [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Viering, in view of Nishio, to utilize a source in the manner taught by Deguchi. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing normal observation light ([0040] of Deguchi).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0008656 to Viering et al. (hereinafter “Viering”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0328063 to Nishio et al. (hereinafter “Nishio”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0195948 to Henley.
Regarding claim 7, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device of claim 1.
Viering, in view of Nishio, fails to expressly teach he device of claim 1, wherein the second source comprises a plurality of narrowband sources that are independently actuatable, and wherein each of the plurality of narrowband sources is tuned to emit a waveband of electromagnetic radiation selected for advanced visualization; andwherein the advanced visualization comprises one or more of multispectral visualization or fluorescence visualization, and wherein each of the plurality of narrowband sources is finely tuned to emit electromagnetic radiation within a waveband equal to or narrower than 20 nm wide.
However, Nishio further teaches wherein the second source comprises a plurality of narrowband sources (Nishio: 20a, Fig. 3a, [0047]-[0154]; duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)), and wherein each of the plurality of narrowband sources is tuned to emit a waveband of electromagnetic radiation selected for advanced visualization (Nishio: 20a, Fig. 3a, [0047]-[0154]; duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)); and wherein the advanced visualization comprises one or more of multispectral visualization or fluorescence visualization, and wherein each of the plurality of narrowband sources is finely tuned to emit electromagnetic radiation within a waveband equal to or narrower than 20 nm wide (Nishio: 20a, Fig. 3a, [0047]-[0154]; duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Viering, in view of Nishio, to utilize light sources in the manner taught by Nishio. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing light ([0038] of Nishio).
Viering, in view of Nishio, fails to expressly teach sources that are independently actuatable.
However, Henley teaches of a device (Henley: Fig. 1) including sources that are independently actuatable (Henley: 134, 138, Fig. 1A, [0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Viering, in view of Nishio,, to utilize sources that are independently actuatable, as taught by Heneley. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of emitting a specific pulse ([0091] of Henley).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0008656 to Viering et al. (hereinafter “Viering”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0328063 to Nishio et al. (hereinafter “Nishio”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0313887 to Folan et al. (hereinafter “Folan”).
Regarding claim 14, Viering, in view of Nishio, teaches the device of claim 13, and Viering further discloses wherein the device further comprises an image sensor disposed within one of the lumen of the endoscope or the handpiece of the endoscope (110, Fig. 1, [0025]).
Viering, in view of Nishio, fails to expressly teach wherein the lumen of the endoscope comprises two or more concentric channels along a length of a longitudinal axis of the lumen, and wherein the two or more concentric channels comprises:a first innermost channel; anda second channel disposed around the first innermost channel.
However, Folan teaches of a device wherein the lumen of the endoscope comprises two or more concentric channels along a length of a longitudinal axis of the lumen, and wherein the two or more concentric channels comprises: a first innermost channel; and a second channel disposed around the first innermost channel (Folan: 202, 204, Fig. 2, [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Viering, in view of Nishio,, to utilize a lumen, as taught by Folan. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of extending the channel ([0029] of Folan).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0008656 to Viering et al. (hereinafter “Viering”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0328063 to Nishio et al. (hereinafter “Nishio”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0313887 to Folan et al. (hereinafter “Folan”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0239124 to Naruse et al. (hereinafter “Naruse”).
Regarding claim 15, Viering, in view of Nishio, and Folan teaches the device of claim 14.
Viering, in view of Nishio, and Folan fails to expressly teach wherein the image sensor is disposed within the first innermost channel; and wherein the plurality of optical fibers is disposed within the second channel disposed around the first innermost channel.
However, Naruse further teaches wherein the image sensor is disposed within the first innermost channel (Naruse: [0240]); and wherein the plurality of optical fibers is disposed within the second channel disposed around the first innermost channel (Naruse: 136, Fig. 2, Fig. [0136]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Viering, in view of Nishio, and Folan to utilize an image sensor and optical fiber, as taught by Naruse. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of processing and transmitting the information ([0312] of Naruse).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0008656 to Viering et al. (hereinafter “Viering”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0328063 to Nishio et al. (hereinafter “Nishio”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0313887 to Folan et al. (hereinafter “Folan”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0239124 to Naruse et al. (hereinafter “Naruse”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0378279 to Poll.
Regarding claim 16, Viering, in view of Nishio, and Folan and Naruse, teaches the device of claim 15.
Viering, in view of Nishio, and Folan and Naruse,fails to expressly teach wherein the microcontroller unit is in electronic communication with the image sensor, and wherein the microcontroller unit sets correct registers for the image sensor on a per-frame basis to instruct the image sensor to read out a plurality of data frames according to a sensor cycle.
However, Poll further teaches wherein the microcontroller unit is in electronic communication with the image sensor, and wherein the microcontroller unit sets correct registers for the image sensor on a per-frame basis to instruct the image sensor to read out a plurality of data frames according to a sensor cycle (Poll: [0073], [0175]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Viering, in view of Nishio, and Folan and Naruse, to utilize a microcontroller, as taught by Poll. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of processing the information ([0175] of Poll).
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 CHRISTEN A. SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM, and Friday 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM.
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, Mike 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.
/C.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795