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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2025 have been fully considered but they moot in view of new ground of rejection.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “suction unit” in claim 62.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 61, 63-65, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Yang [US 20190076119 A1].
As per claim 61, Yang teaches a transparent-ultrasonic-sensor-based (Yang ¶0098 “an optically-transparent array transducer”) optical-ultrasonic integrated endoscopic probe (Yang Figs 1-2), comprising:
an optical fiber laser unit emitting light (Yang Fig , ¶0114 laser source 2000 that provides pulse-type light energy);
a transparent ultrasonic sensor (Yang ¶0123 “optically-transparent array transducer 1111”)
arranged between an object to be measured and the optical fiber laser unit to transmit, therethrough, the light emitted from the optical fiber laser unit (Yang Fig 2, ¶0131 arrangement as claimed implied),
coaxially aligned with the light emitted from the optical fiber laser unit (Yang Fig 2, ¶0131, ¶0137, ¶0155 coaxial arrangement of ring-shaped array transducer 1111, with light from fiber 1113),
radiating ultrasonic waves at the object (), and receiving reflected ultrasonic waves (Yang ¶0131 “the ring-shaped array transducer 1111 …also be configured to generate ultrasonic pulses or detect the ultrasonic or photoacoustic waves propagating from the target point”);
and a camera acquiring an image of the object through the transparent ultrasonic sensor (Yang Fig 1 ¶0143-¶0144 images formed from PA imaging and ultrasound imaging at 3000);
and an optical lens arranged between the transparent ultrasonic sensor and the optical fiber laser unit (Yang Fig 2, ¶0138 “Thus, the construction of the light diffuser 1112 may utilize such optical elements as lenses…”), and adjusting characteristics of light from the optical fiber laser unit (Implied as property of diffuser /lenses).
As per claim 63, Yang further teaches a reflector changing a path of light from the optical fiber laser unit to a preset angle (Yang Figs 5A-5D, reflections at prism into different angles preset by shape of the prism used).
As per claim 65, Yang further teaches wherein the optical lens is provided in plurality (Yang ¶0138 “lenses”).
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 62 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 61 above, and further in view of Morishima ‘655 [US 20200100655 A1], and further in view of Morishima ‘265 [US 20210145265 A1].
As per claim 62, Yang does not expressly teach a suction unit sucking a pre-set substance; a plurality of forceps holes performing a pre-set medical function; and at least one of water nozzles spraying water.
Morishima ‘655, in a related field of endoscope (a medical imaging device) teaches a suction unit sucking a pre-set substance (Morishima’655 ¶0049 “a suction nipple (made of a resin)”, ¶0110 “…a suction passage…The electrical switch operates suctioning”); a
Morishima ‘655 teaches for endoscope that can provide inspection, while maintaining a high cleaning level at all times. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Yang by integrating components as in Morishima ‘655 that provides omits a labor for cleaning the endoscope device (Morishima’655 ¶0005).
Yang in view of Morishima ‘655 does not expressly teach a plurality of forceps holes.
Morishima ‘265, in a related field teaches a plurality of forceps holes in an endoscope (Morishima ‘265 ¶0158 “The endoscope 100 may have a plurality of forceps ports 121a”).
As per MPEP 2144.04.VI.B, “…mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. In the instant case, the claim merely recites multiple holes for the forceps. This is known as evidenced by Morishima ‘265. The modification of Yang in view of Morishima ‘655, using plurality of forceps holes would be obvious since no unexpected result, other than use for multiple forceps are produced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OOMMEN JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-5166. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/Oommen Jacob/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797