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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20, 22, 42, 48-53 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
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, the:
“amplitude modulators” of claim 45
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“amplitude modulators” in claim 45.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112a
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.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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.
Claim limitation:
“amplitude modulators”
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification does not indicate what actual physical structure an amplitude modulator is. The term amplitude modulator appears to be mentioned seven times in the specification but never indicating a structure.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 16, 41, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Miyagi US4706657.
Miyagi discloses for claim 1, “A method for illuminating a target, the method comprising:
at an input end (18b; fig 28 or 29; the rejection cites the configuration of fig 28, but also applies to fig 29 which simply has an additional focusing optic 94 and 96) of one or more optical fibers, coupling light emitted by multiple light emitters (86, 88; fig 28) into the one or more optical fibers at multiple input angles (beam paths from 86 and 88 are at different input angles with respect to the axis of the fiber; fig 28) relative to an optical axis of the one or more optical fibers at the input end;
illuminating the target with light exiting the one or more optical fibers at an output end of the one or more optical fibers (fig 2 shows the illumination of the input light at the end of the fiber); and
controlling an input angular radiant intensity distribution of the light at the input end, by controlling relative output intensities of the multiple light emitters, to cause an output angular radiant intensity distribution exhibiting an increase in output intensity with increasing output angle (12:60-13:12 describes separate voltage controllers for each of the light sources such that each light source is controlled independently to adjust the light quantity supplied to the other end for the purpose of providing adequate/suitable brightness 2:28-38, where central and peripheral illumination vastly differs 3:25-28, i.e. where increased peripheral illumination is required and therefore requires increased illumination)”.
Miyagi discloses for claim 2, “The method of claim 1, wherein the input angular radiant intensity distribution of the light at the input end is controlled to achieve uniform perceived illumination of the target as measured by a camera (12:60-13:12 describes separate voltage controllers for each of the light sources such that each light source is controlled independently to adjust the light quantity supplied to the other end for the purpose of providing adequate/suitable brightness 2:28-38; sensors 41 and 42)”.
Miyagi discloses for claim 4, “The method of claim1, wherein the target comprises an anatomical target, the output end of the one or more optical fibers is placed inside a patient's body, and the light at the input end is coupled into the one or more optical fibers at the input end outside the patient's body (fig 3, 4; 1:6-9 describes conventional endoscopic use)”.
Miyagi discloses for claim 5, “The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more optical fibers form a fiber bundle (18)”.
Miyagi discloses for claim 6, “The method of claim 1, wherein controlling the input angular radiant intensity distribution of the light at the input end comprises increasing a radiant intensity of the light at the input end with increasing input angles (12:60-13:12 describes separate voltage controllers for each of the light sources such that each light source is controlled independently to adjust the light quantity supplied to the other end for the purpose of providing adequate/suitable brightness 2:28-38, where central and peripheral illumination vastly differs 3:25-28, i.e. where increased peripheral illumination is required and therefore requires increased illumination)”.
Miyagi discloses for claim 16, “The method of claim 1, wherein the relative output intensities of the multiple light emitters are controlled based at least in part on measurements of at least one of an input angular radiant intensity distribution at the input end of the one or more optical fibers, an output angular radiant intensity distribution at an output end of the one or more optical fibers (fig 13 shows sensors 41, 42; 7:61-65, 8:29-64 describes the sensors used to detect the light amount in the central and peripheral regions in order to control the illumination light intensity), or an illumination of the target”.
Miyagi discloses for claim 41, “An illumination source comprising:
a plurality of light emitters (86, 88; fig 28) configured to emit light towards a common region at different angles relative to an optical axis of the illumination source; and
a controller configured to vary, based on the angles, relative intensities of the emitted light (12:60-13:12 describes separate voltage controllers for each of the light sources such that each light source is controlled independently to adjust the light quantity supplied to the other end for the purpose of providing adequate/suitable brightness 2:28-38, where central and peripheral illumination vastly differs 3:25-28, i.e. where increased peripheral illumination is required and therefore requires increased illumination)”.
Miyagi discloses for claim 45, “The illumination source of claim 41, wherein the controller is configured to vary the relative intensities of the emitted light by controlling at least one of output intensities produced by the plurality of light emitters or intensity reductions imparted by amplitude modulators at outputs of the plurality of light emitters (12:60-13:12 describes separate voltage controllers for each of the light sources such that each light source is controlled independently to adjust the light quantity supplied to the other end for the purpose of providing adequate/suitable brightness 2:28-38, where central and peripheral illumination vastly differs 3:25-28, i.e. where increased peripheral illumination is required and therefore requires increased illumination)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagi.
The embodiment of Miyagi relied upon does not disclose for claim 3, “The method of claim 2, wherein the camera is substantially collocated with the output end of the one or more optical fibers”. Miyagi in an alternative embodiment teaches a distal image sensor 81 located next to the output of the fiber bundle (fig 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Miyagi’s alternative embodiment into the relied upon embodiment in order to configure the method e.g. as claimed because it provides the capability to digitally process the image signals, including brightness detection from the image signal (12:4-7).
Claim(s) 17 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsunobu US 20170209032.
Miyagi does not disclose for claim 17, “The method of claim 1, wherein the multiple light emitters comprise one or more groups of light emitters emitting light at different respective wavelengths”. Matsunobu teaches in the same field of endeavor, replacing lamp light with RGB laser light (fig 17; 0004). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Matsunobu into the invention of Miyagi in order to configure the method e.g. as claimed because of the advantages of laser light over a lamp light which includes lower power consumption, smaller diameter insertion portions (0005).
Miyagi does not disclose for claim 46, “The illumination source of claim 41, wherein the plurality of light emitters comprise two or more groups of light emitters, a first group of light emitters of the two or more groups of light emitters configured to emit light of a first wavelength and a second group of light emitters of the two or more groups of light emitters configured to emit light of a second wavelength different from the first wavelength”. Matsunobu teaches in the same field of endeavor, replacing lamp light with RGB laser light (fig 17; 0004). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Matsunobu into the invention of Miyagi in order to configure the method e.g. as claimed because of the advantages of laser light over a lamp light which includes lower power consumption, smaller diameter insertion portions (0005).
Claim(s) 18 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tuliakov US20140228635.
Miyagi discloses for claim 18, “wherein coupling the light emitted by the multiple light emitters into the one or more optical fibers at the multiple input angles relative to an optical axis of the one or more optical fibers at the input end comprises focusing the collimated light onto the input end of the one or more optical fibers (condenser 94, 96; fig 29)”
Miyagi does not disclose for claim 18, “The method of claim 1, wherein the multiple light emitters are oriented to emit light towards a focal region at a front focal plane of a collimating optic at multiple angles with respect to an optical axis of the collimating optic, wherein the collimating optic generates collimated light from the light at the multiple angles with respect to the optical axis of the collimating optic”, but does disclose collimating optics (mirrors 91, 92; fig 29) using multiple optics (mirrors 91 and 92), not a single collimating optic as claimed. Tuliakov teaches in the same field of endeavor, using a single optical element (light adjuster 150; 0043-0045) in place of the multiple mirrors 91, 92 to collimate multiple light sources. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Tuliakov into the invention of Miyagi in order to configure the method e.g. as claimed because it reduces the number of components (multiple mirrors 91, 92) into a single optical element, providing the advantage of simplicity and lower cost of manufacturing.
Miyagi discloses for claim 43, “and a focusing optic positioned to focus the collimated light into a focal region operably collocated with an input end of one or more optical fibers”.
Miyagi does not disclose for claim 43, “The illumination source of claim 41, further comprising: a collimating optic positioned to collimate the light emitted by the plurality of light emitters; wherein the common region is placed at a front focal plane of the collimating optic. Tuliakov teaches in the same field of endeavor, using a single optical element (light adjuster 150; 0043-0045) in place of the multiple mirrors 91, 92 to collimate multiple light sources. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Tuliakov into the invention of Miyagi in order to configure the method e.g. as claimed because it reduces the number of components (multiple mirrors 91, 92) into a single optical element, providing the advantage of simplicity and lower cost of manufacturing.
Claim(s) 19 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagi and Tuliakov as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Matsunobu.
Miyagi does not disclose for claim 19, “The method of claim 18, further comprising despeckling the collimated light at a transform plane between the collimating optic and a focusing optic used to focus the collimated light onto the input end of the one or more optical fibers”. Matsunobu teaches in the same field of endeavor, a diffuser 140/microlens array 143 configured as claimed (fig 3; 0134). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Matsunobu into the invention of Miyagi in order to configure the method e.g. as claimed because it helps to reduce speckle noise (0023).
Miyagi does not disclose for claim 44, “The illumination source of claim 43, further comprising: a speckle reducer placed at a transform plane between the collimating and focusing optics. Matsunobu teaches in the same field of endeavor, a diffuser 140/microlens array 143 configured as claimed (fig 3; 0134). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Matsunobu into the invention of Miyagi in order to configure the method e.g. as claimed because it helps to reduce speckle noise (0023).
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagi and Matsunobu as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view of Fujiwara US20140332677.
Miyagi does not disclose for claim 47, “The illumination source of claim 46,wherein the first group of light emitters is arranged in a first half plane including the optical axis and the second group of light emitters is arranged in a second half plane including the optical axis, wherein the second half plane is different from the first half plane”. Fujiwara teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing different wavelengths of illuminating light on different half planes of an optical axis (fig 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Fujiwara into the invention of Miyagi in order to configure the illumination source e.g. as claimed because it provides a more compact configuration of plural illumination sources taking up less space than if they were configured linearly on only one side of a half plane (fig 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE K WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-0837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-2:30p, 6p-9p.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-4963. 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.
/Jae Woo/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
02/09/26