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 cancellation of claims 14-16, and the amendments to claims 11, 12, 17, and 18, and the addition of claims 20-22 in the response filed on 04/14/2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-13 and 17-22 remain pending in the application
Claims 1-10 and 19 are withdrawn.
Claims 14-16 are cancelled.
Claims 11-18 and 20-22 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 claims 11 to require “acquire the first identification information from the first memory; acquire the second identification information from the second memory; compare the first identification information with the second identification information; and when the first identification information matches the second identification information, permit use of the endoscope as a first processing”, 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) 11, 12, 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0352410 to Okawa et al. (hereinafter “Okawa”) in view of JP2008113713A to Iwamoto and in view of and U.S. Publication No. 2007/0208252 to Makower.
Regarding claim 11, Okawa teaches endoscope system, comprising: an endoscope (1, Fig. 2, [0019]); and an endoscope observing apparatus (3, Fig. 1, [0029]) to which the endoscope is connected (Fig. 1), wherein the endoscope includes: a multi use component (23, Fig 2, [0026]); a single use component (41, Fig. 2, [0027]); a first memory provided in the multi use component (26, Fig 2, [0026]), and configured to store a first identification information ([0023]); and a second memory (44, Fig. 2, [0030]) provided in the single use component (44) and configured to store a second identification information; wherein the endoscope observing apparatus includes at least one processor (3, Fig. 2, [0031]), and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: acquire the first identification information from the first memory ([0049]-[0052]); acquire the second identification information from the second memory([0049]-[0052]).
Okawa fails to expressly teach a first identification information in a rewritable format; a second identification information in an unrewritable format, compare the first identification information with the second identification information; and when the first identification information matches the second identification information, permit use of the endoscope as a first processing.
However, Iwamoto teaches an endoscope system (Iwamoto: 100, Fig. 1) including comparing a first identification information in a rewritable format (Iwamoto: Page 3-Next, the system control unit 220 determines whether image data that matches the image data received from the fingerprint authentication sensor 270 is stored in the EEPROM 272 based on the result of the collation processing in S12 (S13)); a second identification information (Iwamoto: Page 3- Next, the system control unit 220 determines whether image data that matches the image data received from the fingerprint authentication sensor 270 is stored in the EEPROM 272 based on the result of the collation processing in S12 (S13)) the first identification information with the second identification information ; and when the first identification information matches the second identification information, permit use of the endoscope as a first processing (Iwamoto: Page 3- When the system control unit 220 determines in step S13 that matching image data is stored in the EEPROM 272 (S13: YES), all the functions of the processor 200 in which the user holding the fingerprint is registered as a user are registered. Judge that the user is allowed to use).
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 Okawa to utilize the first and second information in the manner as taught by Iwamoto. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of comparing information (Iwamoto: Page 3).
Okawa, in view of Iwamoto, fails to expressly teach a second identification information in an unrewritable format.
However, Makower teaches of an endoscope system (Makower: Fig. 16) including a second identification information in an unrewritable format (Makower: [0124]- connector 402 may contain a PROM, memory chip or other storage medium that holds magnetic or digitally encoded information relating to the device).
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 Okawa, in view of Iwamoto, to utilize a second identification information in an unrewritable format, as taught by Makower. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of storing information ([0124] of Makower).
Regarding claim 12, Okawa, in view of Iwamoto and Makower, teaches the endoscope system according to claim 11, and Okawa further teaches wherein the endoscope further includes: a sensor configured to monitor a subject (24, Fig. 2, [0023]); an operating unit (10, Fig. 1, [0020]); a universal cable extends from a side surface of the operating unit (11, Fig. 1, [0020]); and a connector configured to connect the universal cable to the endoscope observing apparatus (41, Fig. 2, [0028]), wherein the multi use component is an image pickup unit (23, Fig 2, [0026]) including the sensor (24), and wherein the single use component is the connector (41, Fig. 2, [0028]).
Regarding claim 13, Okawa, in view of Iwamoto and Makower, teaches the endoscope system according to claim 12, and Okawa further discloses wherein the sensor is an image sensor (26, Fig 2, [0026]).
Regarding claim 17, Okawa, in view of Iwamoto and Makower, teaches the endoscope system according to claim 11.
Okawa, in view of Iwamoto and Makower, fails to expressly teach wherein the second memory is a onetime programmable ROM.
However, Makower further teaches teach wherein the second memory is a onetime programmable ROM (Makower: [0124]- connector 402 may contain a PROM, memory chip or other storage medium that holds magnetic or digitally encoded information relating to the device).
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 Okawa, in view of Iwamoto and Makower, to utilize a second identification information in an unrewritable format, as taught by Makower. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of storing information ([0124] of Makower).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0352410 to Okawa et al. (hereinafter “Okawa”) in view of JP2008113713A to Iwamoto.
Regarding claim 18, Okawa discloses an endoscope observing apparatus, comprising: a processor (3, Fig. 2, [0031]), wherein the processor is configured to: acquire first identification information stored in a first memory of an endoscope connected to the processor ([0049]-[0052]), acquire second identification information stored in a second memory of the endoscope([0049]-[0052]).
Okawa fails to expressly teach compare the first identification information with the second identification information, and when the first identification information matches the second identification information, permit use of the endoscope as a first processing.
However, Iwamoto teaches of an endoscope observing apparatus (Iwamoto: 100, Fig. 1) comprising :a processor,wherein the processor is configured to: compare the first identification information with the second identification information, (Iwamoto: Page 3-Next, the system control unit 220 determines whether image data that matches the image data received from the fingerprint authentication sensor 270 is stored in the EEPROM 272 based on the result of the collation processing in S12 (S13)); and when the first identification information matches the second identification information, permit use of the endoscope as a first processing (Iwamoto: Page 3- When the system control unit 220 determines in step S13 that matching image data is stored in the EEPROM 272 (S13: YES), all the functions of the processor 200 in which the user holding the fingerprint is registered as a user are registered. Judge that the user is allowed to use).
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 Okawa to utilize the first and second information in the manner as taught by Iwamoto. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of comparing information (Iwamoto: Page 3).
Claim(s) 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0352410 to Okawa et al. (hereinafter “Okawa”) in view of JP2008113713A to Iwamoto and further in view of JP2012085866A to Kaiki.
Regarding claim 20, Okawa, in view of Iwamoto and Makower, teaches the endoscope system according to claim 12.
Okawa, in view of Iwamoto and Makower, fails to expressly teach wherein the at least one processor changes the first identification information stored in the first memory as a second processing by rewriting, deleting or adding information.
However, Kaiki teaches of an endoscope system (Kaiki: 100, Fig. 1) wherein the at least one processor changes the first identification information stored in the first memory as a second processing by rewriting, deleting or adding information (Kaiki: page 5- In the next step S403, it is confirmed whether or not the type of the currently connected scope 200 matches the scope identification information of the B program and whether the version of the B program is newer than the version of the A program. If the scope identification information matches and the version is new, the process proceeds to step S404, and if not, the process proceeds to step S406).
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 Okawa, in view of Iwamoto and Makower, so that the at least one processor changes the first identification information stored in the first memory as a second processing by rewriting, deleting or adding information, as taught by Kaiki. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of updating the information (page 5 of Kaiki).
Regarding claim 21, Okawa, in view of Iwamoto and Makower, teaches the endoscope observing apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the processor changes the first identification information stored in the first memory as a second processing by rewriting, deleting or adding information.
Okawa, in view of Iwamoto and Makower, fails to expressly teach wherein the at least one processor changes the first identification information stored in the first memory as a second processing by rewriting, deleting or adding information.
However, Kaiki teaches of an endoscope system (Kaiki: 100, Fig. 1) wherein the at least one processor changes the first identification information stored in the first memory as a second processing by rewriting, deleting or adding information (Kaiki: page 5- In the next step S403, it is confirmed whether or not the type of the currently connected scope 200 matches the scope identification information of the B program and whether the version of the B program is newer than the version of the A program. If the scope identification information matches and the version is new, the process proceeds to step S404, and if not, the process proceeds to step S406).
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 Okawa, in view of Iwamoto and Makower, so that the at least one processor changes the first identification information stored in the first memory as a second processing by rewriting, deleting or adding information, as taught by Kaiki. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of updating the information (page 5 of Kaiki).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0352410 to Okawa et al. (hereinafter “Okawa”) in view of JP2008113713A to Iwamoto and U.S. Publication No. 2007/0208252 to Makower and in view of CN112712016A to Song et al. (hereinafter “Song”).
Regarding claim 22, Okawa discloses an endoscope system, comprising: an endoscope (2, Fig. 2, [0019]); and an endoscope observing apparatus to which the endoscope is connected (1, Fig. 2, [0019]), wherein the endoscope includes: a multi-use component (24, Fig. 2, [0023]); a single use component (41, Fig. 2, [0028]); a first memory provided in the multi-use component and configured to store a first identification information (26, Fig. 2, [0023]); and a second memory provided in the single use component and configured to store a second identification information (44, Fig. 2, [0030]), wherein the endoscope observing apparatus includes at least one processor (3, Fig. 2, [0031]), and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: acquire the first identification information from the first memory ([0049]-[0052]); acquire the second identification information from the second memory ([0049]-[0052]).
Okawa fails to expressly teach a first identification information in a rewritable format; a second identification information in an unrewritable format, compare the first identification information with the second identification information; and when the first identification information does not match the second identification information, generate a warning against use of the endoscope.
However, Iwamoto teaches an endoscope system (Iwamoto: 100, Fig. 1) including comparing a first identification information in a rewritable format (Iwamoto: Page 3-Next, the system control unit 220 determines whether image data that matches the image data received from the fingerprint authentication sensor 270 is stored in the EEPROM 272 based on the result of the collation processing in S12 (S13)).
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 Okawa to utilize the first info in the manner as taught by Iwamoto. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of comparing information (Iwamoto: Page 3).
Okawa, in view of Iwamoto, fails to expressly teach a second identification information in an unrewritable format.
However, Makower teaches of an endoscope system (Makower: Fig. 16) including a second identification information in an unrewritable format (Makower: [0124]- connector 402 may contain a PROM, memory chip or other storage medium that holds magnetic or digitally encoded information relating to the device).
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 Okawa, in view of Iwamoto, to utilize a second identification information in an unrewritable format, as taught by Makower. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of storing information ([0124] of Makower).
Okawa, in view of Iwamoto, and Makower, fails to expressly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to: compare the first identification information with the second identification information; and when the first identification information does not match the second identification information, generate a warning against use of the endoscope.
However, Song teaches of an endoscope system (Song: Fig. 1) wherein the at least one processor is configured to: compare the first identification information with the second identification information; and when the first identification information does not match the second identification information, generate a warning against use of the endoscope (Song: page 11- Further, if the first identification information of the surgical instrument does not match the second identification information, the alarm device is triggered to output the first alarm signal to remind the operator to check).
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 Okawa, in view of Iwamoto, and Makower, to utilize a warning when the information does not match, as taught by Song. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of generate a warning against use of the endoscope (page 11 of Song).
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
Prosecution Insights