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
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 7/6/2026. Currently claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-10, filed 7/6/2026, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of:
claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6 and 15 rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishihara
claim(s) 2, 8-11, 13, 16-17 and 19 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara
claim(s) 5, 7, 12, 14, 18 rejected under 35 USC as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Bendall
have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the additional reference of Omori et al (US 20180153386) hereafter known as Omori.
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.
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) 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara et al (US 20070046778) hereafter known as Ishihara in view of Omori et al (US 20180153386) hereafter known as Omori.
Independent claims:
Regarding claim 1:
Ishihara discloses:
An endoscope cap [see Fig. 57-59 element 95 and para 333… “As FIG. 57 to FIG. 59 show, an optical imaging device 1I of Embodiment 7 has a cap 95 which is freely removably attached to the distal portion 6a of the insertion section 61 of the endoscope 2I.”] comprising:
a light-transmissive portion having a tubular shape made of a light-transmissive material [see labelled figure directly below rejection to this claim and para 334… “Specifically, this illumination light filter 96 is placed so as to cover the portion other than the objective lens 22, which is a light receiving window, as shown in FIG. 59.”],
the light-transmissive portion including a coating layer on a periphery of the tubular shape [see Figs. 57-59 element 96 and para 334… “this illumination light filter 96 is placed so as to cover the portion other than the objective lens 22”]; and
a tubular portion configured to connect the light-transmissive portion to a distal end of an insertion portion of an endoscope [see Fig. 57-59 element 95a and para 333-334… “the distal portion 6a of the insertion section 61 of the endoscope 2I.” and “A cap main unit 95a may be made up of a light shielding element or a transparent element.” And see labelled figure directly below rejection to this claim which shows element 95a (i.e. the tubular portion) connecting to element 6a (i.e. distal end of an insertion portion of an endoscope)]
the coating layer being configured to reflect light in a wavelength band for light treatment of a body portion and transmit light in a wavelength band for white light image capturing [see Fig. 57 (light from element 11 (i.e. white light source) directed via other elements and para 337… “the illumination light filter 96 transmits the wavelength band of the excitation light from the light irradiated from the endoscope 2I to the subject 21, and shields fluorescence or Raman scattering light from the illumination light path.”]
However, Ishihara fails to disclose this coating layer as specifically reflecting or having a configuration to reflect excitation light. Therefore, Ishihara fails to fully disclose “the coating layer being configured to reflect excitation light in a wavelength band for light treatment of a body portion and transmit light in a wavelength band for white light image capturing” as claimed.
Omori discloses in the analogous art of endoscopy [see abstract… “An endoscope apparatus and a method of operating the endoscope apparatus that perform both illumination light observation and fluorescence observation by a simple configuration.”] using dichromatic filters that reduce excitation light to help reduce cross talk between fluoresce and excitation light [see paras 6…. “Since it is difficult to distinguish excitation light from fluorescence in a case in which Stokes shift is small, it is not possible to accurately detect fluorescence. For this reason, a dichroic filter, a band pass filter, a long-pass filter, or the like is used in the fluorescence observation as a filter for fluorescence observation that reflects or transmits light of a specific wavelength region corresponding to excitation light or fluorescence” and para 9… “In the fluorescence endoscope video system disclosed in JP2005-514147A, color separation between excitation light and fluorescence is poor and overlap (cross talk) between the wavelength region of excitation light and the wavelength region of fluorescence occurs. Accordingly, a filter for reducing the intensity of excitation light is provided on the front side of the image pickup element to acquire a good fluorescence image.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ishihara’s coating layer to include dichromatic layer that extends in the middle between the rest of the coating (i.e. elements 96 of Ishihara) that reflects excitation light similarly to that disclosed by Omori (thereby reciting “the coating layer being configured to reflect excitation light in a wavelength band for light treatment of a body portion and transmit light in a wavelength band for white light image capturing”) to help reduce the intensity of the excitation light for the purpose of reducing cross-talk, thereby leading to clearer captured return signal.
PNG
media_image1.png
734
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Independent claim
Regarding claim 8:
Ishihara discloses:
A light treatment endoscope system [see Fig. 57-59 and para 333… “As FIG. 57 to FIG. 59 show, an optical imaging device 1I of Embodiment 7 has a cap 95 which is freely removably attached to the distal portion 6a of the insertion section 61 of the endoscope 2I.”] comprising:
a first light source configured to supply a first light in a first wavelength band for light treatment [see Fig. 57 element 11 and para 350… “a white light source 11 provided inside the light source device 3J is converted into roughly parallel beams by a collimator lens 12J”];
an endoscope including an insertion portion, the endoscope being configured to emit the first light from a distal end of the insertion portion [see Fig. 57-59 element 2l (i.e. endoscope) and (i.e. distal end of insertion portion) and para 333… “the endoscope 2I.” and “distal portion 6a”]; and
an endoscope cap detachably connected to the distal end of the insertion portion [see Fig. 57-59 element 95 (i.e. endoscope cap) and para 333… “As FIG. 57 to FIG. 59 show, an optical imaging device 1I of Embodiment 7 has a cap 95 which is freely removably attached to the distal portion 6a of the insertion section 61 of the endoscope 2I.”],
the endoscope cap including a light-transmissive portion and a tubular portion [see Fig. 57-59 element 95a (i.e. tubular portion) and see labelled figure directly below rejection to this claim], the light-transmissive portion having a tubular shape made of a light-transmissive material [see labelled figure directly below rejection to this claim and para 334… “Specifically, this illumination light filter 96 is placed so as to cover the portion other than the objective lens 22, which is a light receiving window, as shown in FIG. 59.”] and including a coating layer on a periphery of the tubular shape [see Figs. 57-59 element 96 (i.e. coating layer) and para 334… “this illumination light filter 96 is placed so as to cover the portion other than the objective lens 22”],
the tubular portion being configured to connect the light-transmissive portion to the distal end of the insertion portion [see Fig. 57-59 element 95a (i.e. tubular portion) and para 333-334… “the distal portion 6a of the insertion section 61 of the endoscope 2I.” and “A cap main unit 95a may be made up of a light shielding element or a transparent element.” And see labelled figure directly below rejection to this claim which shows element 95a (i.e. the tubular portion) connecting to element 6a (i.e. distal end of the insertion portion of an endoscope)],
the first light being excitation light [white light (i.e. the first light) is understood to include the excitation light]
However, Ishihara fails to disclose “a second light source configured to supply a second light in a second wavelength band for white light imaging” as recited by claim 8. Also, as Ishihara fails to disclose a second light source, Ishihara fails disclose “the coating layer being configured to reflect the first light and transmit the second light”
Omori discloses in the analogous art of endoscopy [see abstract… “An endoscope apparatus and a method of operating the endoscope apparatus that perform both illumination light observation and fluorescence observation by a simple configuration.”] using dichromatic filters that reduce excitation light to help reduce cross talk between fluoresce and excitation light [see paras 6…. “Since it is difficult to distinguish excitation light from fluorescence in a case in which Stokes shift is small, it is not possible to accurately detect fluorescence. For this reason, a dichroic filter, a band pass filter, a long-pass filter, or the like is used in the fluorescence observation as a filter for fluorescence observation that reflects or transmits light of a specific wavelength region corresponding to excitation light or fluorescence” and para 9… “In the fluorescence endoscope video system disclosed in JP2005-514147A, color separation between excitation light and fluorescence is poor and overlap (cross talk) between the wavelength region of excitation light and the wavelength region of fluorescence occurs. Accordingly, a filter for reducing the intensity of excitation light is provided on the front side of the image pickup element to acquire a good fluorescence image.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ishihara to include an identical second light with an identical second wavelength similar to the first wavelength, because absent unpredicted results this is a mere duplication of parts which has been ruled to be an obvious modification [see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to modify Ishihara’s coating layer to include dichromatic layer that extends in the middle between the rest of the coating (i.e. elements 96 of Ishihara) that reflects excitation light (i.e. the first light) while transmitting the rest of the light (i.e. the second light) similarly to that disclosed by Omori (thereby fully reciting the missing limitations) to help reduce the intensity of the excitation light for the purpose of reducing cross-talk, thereby leading to a clearer captured return signal
PNG
media_image1.png
734
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Independent claim
Regarding claim 15:
Ishihara discloses:
A light treatment method [see Figs. 57-59 and para 101… “the illumination lights emitted from the light emitting ends of the light guides 7 and 8 spread via each illumination lens 15a and 15b facing each light emitting end, and are irradiated onto the subject 21.”] comprising:
fixing an endoscope cap having a tubular shape to a distal end of an insertion portion of an endoscope [see Fig. 57-59 element 2l (i.e. endoscope) and 6a (i.e. distal end of an insertion portion) and labelled figure directly below rejection to this claim and para 333… “the endoscope 2I.” and “distal portion 6a”] such that the tubular shape surrounds an emission site at the distal end of the insertion portion when viewed from a direction along a central axis of the insertion portion [see labelled figure directly below rejection to this claim],
the endoscope cap including a coating layer on a periphery of the tubular shape [see Figs. 57-59 element 96 (i.e. coating layer) and labelled figure directly below rejection to this claim and para 334… “this illumination light filter 96 is placed so as to cover the portion other than the objective lens 22”],
the coating layer being configured to interact with white light imaging [see Fig. 57 (light from element 11 (i.e. white light source) directed via other elements and para 337… “the illumination light filter 96 transmits the wavelength band of the excitation light from the light irradiated from the endoscope 2I to the subject 21, and shields fluorescence or Raman scattering light from the illumination light path.”];
pressing a distal end of the endoscope cap against a living tissue [see Figs. 57-59];
concurrently with the pressing, emitting the second light to acquire a white light image of the living tissue based on the second light [see Figs. 57-59]; and
concurrently with the pressing, irradiating a treatment target of the living tissue with the first light to treat the living tissue [see Figs. 57-59].
the first light being excitation light [white light (i.e. the first light) is understood to include the excitation light]
However, Ishihara fails to disclose “the coating layer being configured to reflect first light in a first wavelength band for light treatment and transmit second light in a second wavelength band for white light imaging” as claimed.
Omori discloses in the analogous art of endoscopy [see abstract… “An endoscope apparatus and a method of operating the endoscope apparatus that perform both illumination light observation and fluorescence observation by a simple configuration.”] using dichromatic filters that reduce excitation light to help reduce cross talk between fluoresce and excitation light [see paras 6…. “Since it is difficult to distinguish excitation light from fluorescence in a case in which Stokes shift is small, it is not possible to accurately detect fluorescence. For this reason, a dichroic filter, a band pass filter, a long-pass filter, or the like is used in the fluorescence observation as a filter for fluorescence observation that reflects or transmits light of a specific wavelength region corresponding to excitation light or fluorescence” and para 9… “In the fluorescence endoscope video system disclosed in JP2005-514147A, color separation between excitation light and fluorescence is poor and overlap (cross talk) between the wavelength region of excitation light and the wavelength region of fluorescence occurs. Accordingly, a filter for reducing the intensity of excitation light is provided on the front side of the image pickup element to acquire a good fluorescence image.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ishihara’s coating layer to include dichromatic layer that extends in the middle between the rest of the coating (i.e. elements 96 of Ishihara) that reflects excitation light (i.e. first light and first light wavelength band) and transmits fluorescence (i.e. second wavelength band) similarly to that disclosed by Omori (thereby reciting “the coating layer being configured to reflect first light in a first wavelength band for light treatment and transmit second light in a second wavelength band for white light imaging”) to help reduce the intensity of the excitation light for the purpose of reducing cross-talk, thereby leading to clearer captured return signal.
PNG
media_image2.png
734
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dependent claims:
Regarding claims 2 and 9:
Ishihara in view of Omori discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as outlined above including a coating layer that reflects and transmits specific bands of light [see Fig. 57 (light from element 11 (i.e. white light source) directed via other elements and para 337 of Ishihara … “the illumination light filter 96 transmits the wavelength band of the excitation light from the light irradiated from the endoscope 2I to the subject 21, and shields fluorescence or Raman scattering light from the illumination light path.”]. Also, Ishihara discloses using a white light source understood to capable of emitting different wavelengths throughout the visible light spectrum of 380-750 nm [see Fig. 57 element 11 and para 100 of Ishihara … “In the light source device 3, a white light source 11, collimator lens 12 and condenser lens 13 are installed. Lights from the white light source 11 are converted into roughly parallel beams by the collimator lens 12,”].
However, Ishihara in view of Omori fails to disclose “wherein the coating layer is configured to reflect light in a wavelength band of 680 nm or more and transmit light in a
wavelength band of less than 680 nm.”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to achieve the claimed feature of “wherein the coating layer is configured to reflect light in a wavelength band of 680 nm or more and transmit light in a wavelength band of less than 680 nm.” because as explained previously Ishihara disclose the coating layer as transmitting and reflecting specific set wavelength bands of light with said bands of light being that within visible light spectrum, therefore absent unpredictable results one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the claimed feature through routine experimentation through the application of known factors to achieve a known result.
Regarding claims 3-4, see rejection to claim 1 above which shows in labelled figure element 36 (i.e. the coating layer) adjacent to an inner surface of the light transmissive portion as recited by claim 3 and intersecting a central axis as recited by claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, see para 337 of Ishihara [see “the illumination light filter 96 transmits the wavelength band of the excitation light from the light irradiated from the endoscope 2I to the subject 21, and shields fluorescence or Raman scattering light from the illumination light path. Since the fluorescence or Raman scattering light from the illumination light path is shielded, reflected light or fluorescence generated by the irradiation of excitation light is incident on the objective lens 22 as return lights from the subject 21.”] which discloses irradiating and reflecting as claimed.
Regarding claims 10-11, see rejection to claim 8 above which shows in labelled figure element 36 (i.e. the coating layer) adjacent to an inner surface of the light transmissive portion as recited by claim 10 and intersecting a central axis as recited by claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, see para 337 of Ishihara [see “the illumination light filter 96 transmits the wavelength band of the excitation light from the light irradiated from the endoscope 2I to the subject 21, and shields fluorescence or Raman scattering light from the illumination light path. Since the fluorescence or Raman scattering light from the illumination light path is shielded, reflected light or fluorescence generated by the irradiation of excitation light is incident on the objective lens 22 as return lights from the subject 21.”] which discloses irradiating and reflecting as claimed.
Regarding claims 16-17, see rejection to claim 1 above which shows in labelled figure element 36 (i.e. the coating layer) adjacent to an inner surface of the light transmissive portion as recited by claim 16 and intersecting a central axis as recited by claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, see para 337 of Ishihara [see “the illumination light filter 96 transmits the wavelength band of the excitation light from the light irradiated from the endoscope 2I to the subject 21, and shields fluorescence or Raman scattering light from the illumination light path. Since the fluorescence or Raman scattering light from the illumination light path is shielded, reflected light or fluorescence generated by the irradiation of excitation light is incident on the objective lens 22 as return lights from the subject 21.”] which discloses irradiating and reflecting as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection to claim 1 which discloses a dichroic filter placed in the middle between the rest of the coating (i.e. Fig. 57-59 element 96 of Ishihara) as shown in the labelled figure directly below the rejection to claim 1 placing the layer in front would be formed along a cylindrical portion as claimed.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 12, 14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Omori as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 8, 17 above, and further in view of Bendall et al (US 20150348253) hereafter known as Bendall
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18:
Ishihara in view of Omori discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1-2, 4, 8 and 17 as outlined above.
However, Ishihara in view of Omori fails to disclose “wherein the coating layer is configured to diffuse light, the coating layer being provided circumferentially on less than an entire circumferential periphery of the light-transmissive portion including on a long side of the light-transmissive portion” as recited by claims 5, 12 and 18.
Another embodiment of Ishihara discloses a filter as having a half face shape (i.e. inclusive of being provided circumferentially on less than an entire circumferential periphery of the light-transmissive portion including on a long side of the light-transmissive portion) and that the scope of Ishihara’s disclosure is inclusive of combinations of different embodiments [Fig. 55 element 83a and para 328… “As FIG. 55 shows, the optical filter 93 has a configuration where the illumination light filter 93a” and Para 390… “Embodiments implemented by partially combining each embodiment are therefore included in the present invention.”]
Bendall discloses in the analogous art of endoscope systems that using a diffuser at the tip of the system projects a uniform light pattern on the target object [see para 26… “In some embodiments, the endoscope system 10 may project a diffused or uniform light pattern onto a target feature (e.g., surface or object) in front of the distal end of the probe 15 via the fiber optic bundle 24 and the diffuser 26.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ishihara in view of Omori’s filter (i.e. coating layer) to be a half face shape similar to the embodiment disclosed by Fig. 55 of Ishihara (i.e. inclusive of being provided circumferentially on less than an entire circumferential periphery of the light-transmissive portion including on a long side of the light-transmissive portion) because this is merely a subcombination of the different combination of embodiments disclosed by Ishihara.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ishihara in view of Omori’s filter to diffuse light similarly to that disclosed by Bendall (i.e. wherein the coating layer is configured to diffuse light) because this will provide a uniform pattern of light to be displayed onto the target feature.
Regarding claims 7 and 14:
Ishihara in view of Omori in view of Bendall discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1, 4-5, 8 and 12 as outlined above.
However, Ishihara in view of Omori in view of Bendall fails to disclose “the coating layer being half of the entire circumferential periphery”. as recited by claim 7 and claim 14.
Another embodiment of Ishihara discloses a filter as having a half face shape (i.e. inclusive of half the entire circumferential periphery) and that the scope of Ishihara’s disclosure is inclusive of combinations of different embodiments [Fig. 55 element 83a and para 328… “As FIG. 55 shows, the optical filter 93 has a configuration where the illumination light filter 93a” and Para 390… “Embodiments implemented by partially combining each embodiment are therefore included in the present invention.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ishihara in view of Omori in view of Bendall’s filter (i.e. coating layer) to be a half face shape similar to the embodiment disclosed by Fig. 55 of Ishihara (i.e. inclusive of half the entire circumferential periphery) because this is merely a subcombination of the different combination of embodiments disclosed by Ishihara.
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 SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
