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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 12, 18, 24-25, 27-29, 32-34, 41-42, 45-46, and 48-54 are pending, claims 4, 24-25, 27-29, 32-34, and 41 have been withdrawn from consideration, claims 2, 5, 9-11, 13-17, 19-23, 26, 30-31, 35-40, 43-44, and 47, and claims 1, 3, 6-8, 12, 18, 42, 45-46, and 48-54 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, readable on claims 1, 3, 6-8, 12, 18, 42, 45-46, and 48-54, in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 4, 24-25, 27-29, 32-34, and 41 have been withdrawn.
Claims 32-33 and 41 are dependent on withdrawn claim 24. These claims will be withdrawn due to their dependency on a withdrawn claim.
Claims 48-49 were not included in the Remarks for the Response to Election/Restriction filed on 12/01/2025. These claims are interpreted to read on the elected Species 1 and will be examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: change “the maximum angle” to “a maximum angle” (i.e., not previously recited). Appropriate correction is required.
Duplicate Warning
Claims 18 & 42 and 52-53 are duplicates of one another (i.e., same limitations and are dependent on claim 1).
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: “a video processing apparatus” 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 § 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.
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, 3, 6-8, 12, 18, 42, and 50-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen (US 2020/0060521), in view of Weber (US 2019/0033506) with evidence by Sipple (US 2022/0015635).
Regarding claim 1, Sorensen discloses an endoscope (figure 1a) comprising: an insertion cord (3, figure 1a) comprising a distal tip (5, figure 1b) arranged at a distal end of the insertion cord (see figures 1), said distal tip comprising: an electronic image capture device (6, figure 2b) having an image receptor (image receptor 6a, figure 2b) having a height h in a vertical imaging direction and a width w in a horizontal imaging direction (6a looks to be a square | see figures 2b-5), a light source (7a-b, figure 3), a lightguide (12a-b, figure 3) positioned distally from the light source, the lightguide comprising a proximal end (see proximal end of 12a-b, figure 3), a distal end (see distal end of 12a-b, figure 3) and a circumferential surface surrounding a centre axis (see surface of 12a-b, figures 3-4), the circumferential surface comprising side surfaces (see side surfaces of 12a-b, figures 3-4 | interpreted “circumferential” to mean the perimeter), pairs of the side surfaces joined at edges (see corner areas of 12a-b, figure 4) extending between said proximal end and said distal end, wherein said circumferential surface is configured to provide internal reflection of light emitted from the light source (internally reflected [0095]). Sorensen is silent regarding each of said side surfaces comprises a curvature having an angle of curvature, and wherein said curvature is so selected that incident light emitted about said centre axis is reflected at an angle (Ɵ) with respect to said horizontal imaging direction, where (Ɵ) is either arctan (h/w), or ± 180° - arctan (h/w).
Weber teaches an illumination device (figure 1) with an LED (2, figure 1) and a light transmission part (10, figure 1). The light transmission part has two sections (14 and 16, figure 1). The end of the first section (14, figure 10) that faces the LED (2, figure 1) corresponds to the shape and dimensions of the light emitting surface (4, figure 1) of the LED ([0051]). When the LED has a rectangular, light emitting surface (4, figure 1), than the end face (18, figure 1) of the first section is likewise designed in a rectangular manner ([0051]). In the first section (14, figure 1), the conditions are fulfilled for total reflection ([0012]). In the second section (16, figure 1), light beams with a large angle with respect to the middle axis of the light transmission part are eliminated ([0010]). These light beams are of no significance to the light yield and can even cause thermal loading ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the lightguide of Sorensen with the light transmission part (10, figures 1 and 10) of Weber. Doing so would provide high light fluxes with low thermal loading at the region of the coupling of the light ([0005]). The modified endoscope would have each of said side surfaces comprises a curvature having an angle of curvature (see sides of 14 and16, figure 10; Weber), and wherein said curvature is so selected that incident light emitted about said centre axis is reflected at an angle (Ɵ) with respect to said horizontal imaging direction (total reflection…[0012]), where (Ɵ) is either arctan (h/w) (the image receptor is square; see 6a, figures 2-5 of Sorensen | arctan (h/w) would be 45° due to h/w equaling 1, total reflection…[0012] of Weber; 45 degrees…propagates light…total internal reflection [0083]; as evidenced by Sipple), or ± 180° - arctan (h/w).
Regarding claim 3, Weber further teaches a cross-section transverse to the centre axis comprises four curved edges (see the corner areas of 10, figure 10; Weber) joining in four concave corners (concave corners would occur in the corner when moving along the longitudinal axis on the surface of 14 and 16; see figures 1 and 10; Weber), each of the four curved edges joining a corner of the four concave corners at an angle of 135° (at some point along the longitudinal axis of 14 and 16, the corner can have an angle of 135 degrees | see 90 degrees to essentially 180 degrees in 14 and 16 from distal to proximal ends, figures 1 and 10).
Regarding claim 6, Weber further teaches the angle of curvature of each of the side surfaces increases from two of the edges adjacent to each other toward a middle of each of the side surfaces (see figure 10; Weber).
Regarding claim 7, Weber further teaches the curvature of each of said side surfaces is the same (see figure 10; Weber).
Regarding claim 8, Weber further teaches each of said edges extends at an angle with respect to the centre axis (see 10, figures 1 and 10; Weber), and wherein the angle is constant (the angle of the edges in 14 and 16 would be the same; see figures 1 and 10; Weber)
Regarding claim 12, Sorensen further discloses the angle of the edges with respect to the centre axis is between 0 and 3 degrees (width of the lightguide is 0.5-0.7 mm in the narrow end and 0.8-1.0 mm in the wide end, and has a length of 0.8-1.5 mm [0096] of Sorensen). The width/height of the lightguide, which is interpreted as a square, can be used with the length to find the angle with respect to the centre axis. A difference in width/height between the wide and narrow ends (i.e., 0.7 mm width in the narrow end and a 0.8 mm width in the wide end) divided in half to find the length of the opposite or “b” side (i.e., difference in width 0.1 mm, where half is 0.05). Using the Pythagorean theorem, the equation Ɵ = tan-1 (0.05/1.5) is used to find the angle. Using pairs of angles, the angle Ɵ is 1.9°.
Regarding claim 18, Sorensen further discloses a maximum angle of the side surfaces with respect to the centre axis is in an interval from 2 to 10 degrees (width of the lightguide is 0.5-0.7 mm in the narrow end and 0.8-1.0 mm in the wide end, and has a length of 0.8-1.5 mm [0096] of Sorensen). The width/height of the lightguide, which is interpreted as a square, can be used with the length to find the angle with respect to the centre axis. A difference in width/height between the wide and narrow ends (i.e., 0.7 mm width in the narrow end and a 0.9 mm width in the wide end) divided in half to find the length of the opposite or “b” side (i.e., difference in width 0.2 mm, where half is 0.1). Using the Pythagorean theorem, the equation Ɵ = tan-1 (0.1/1.5) is used to find the angle. Using pairs of angles, the angle Ɵ is 3.81°.
Regarding claim 42, Sorensen further discloses the maximum angle of the side surfaces with respect to the centre axis is in the interval from 2 to 10 degrees (width of the lightguide is 0.5-0.7 mm in the narrow end and 0.8-1.0 mm in the wide end, and has a length of 0.8-1.5 mm [0096] of Sorensen). The width/height of the lightguide, which is interpreted as a square, can be used with the length to find the angle with respect to the centre axis. A difference in width/height between the wide and narrow ends (i.e., 0.7 mm width in the narrow end and a 0.9 mm width in the wide end) divided in half to find the length of the opposite or “b” side (i.e., difference in width 0.2 mm, where half is 0.1). Using the Pythagorean theorem, the equation Ɵ = tan-1 (0.1/1.5) is used to find the angle. Using pairs of angles, the angle Ɵ is 3.81°.
Regarding claim 50, Sorensen and Weber further disclose a cross-section transverse to the centre axis comprises four concave corners (see corners of 12a-b, figures 3-4; Sorensen | see corners of 10, figure 10; Weber) and four curved edges (see corner areas of 12a-b, figure 4 of Sorensen | see corner areas in 10, figure 10; Weber), each of the four curved edges connected to two of the four concave corners (see figure 10; Weber), wherein the lightguide comprises a shape of a frustum of a four-sided pyramid (truncated pyramid [0051]; Weber), and wherein the edges joining the side surfaces are rounded (see figure 10; Weber).
Regarding claim 51, Sorensen and Weber further disclose a cross-section of the lightguide transverse to the centre axis comprises four concave corners (see corner of 12a-b, figures 3-4; Sorensen | see corners of 10, figure 10; Weber) and four curved edges (see the corner areas of 10, figure 10; Weber), each of the four curved edges connected to two of the four concave corners (figure 10; Weber), wherein the lightguide comprises a proximal surface transverse to the center axis (see 18, figures 1 and 10; Weber), and wherein the proximal surface comprises four straight edges (see 18, figure 10; [0051]; Weber).
Regarding claim 52, Weber further teaches the angle of curvature of each of the side surfaces increases from the edges towards a middle of each of the side surfaces (at some point along the centre axis in 10, the curvature of the side surfaces would increase from the edges to the middle of the side surfaces; see figure 10 and [0051] of Weber), and wherein the proximal end comprises a flat surface comprising four straight edges (see 18, figures 1 and 10; [0051]; Weber).
Regarding claim 53, Weber further teaches the angle of curvature of each of the side surfaces increases from the edges towards a middle of each of the side surfaces (at some point along the centre axis in 10, the curvature of the side surfaces would increase from the edges to the middle of the side surfaces; see figure 10 and [0051] of Weber), and wherein the proximal end comprises a flat surface comprising four straight edges (see 18, figures 1 and 10; [0051]; Weber).
Regarding claim 54, Weber further teaches the angle of curvature of each of the side surfaces increases from the edges towards a middle of each of the side surfaces (at some point along the centre axis in 10, the curvature of the side surfaces would increase from the edges to the middle of the side surfaces; see figure 10 and [0051] of Weber).
Claim(s) 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen (US 2020/0060521), in view of Weber (US 2019/0033506) .
Regarding claim 48, Sorensen discloses an endoscope (figure 1a) comprising: an insertion cord (3, figure 1a) comprising a distal tip (5, figure 1b) arranged at a distal end of the insertion cord (see figures 1), said distal tip comprising: an electronic image capture device (6, figure 2b) having an image receptor (image receptor 6a, figure 2b) having a height h in a vertical imaging direction and a width h in a horizontal imaging direction (6a looks to be a square | see figures 2b-5), a light source (7a-b, figure 3), a lightguide (12a-b, figure 3) positioned distally from the light source, the lightguide comprising a proximal end (see proximal end of 12a-b, figure 3), a distal end (see distal end of 12a-b, figure 3) and a circumferential surface surrounding a centre axis and extending between said proximal end and said distal end (see surface of 12a-b, figures 3-4 | interpreted “circumferential” to mean the perimeter), wherein said circumferential surface is configured to provide internal reflection of light emitted from the light source (internally reflected [0095]), and said circumferential surface defines cross-sections of said lightguide (see surface of 12a-b, figures 3-4), wherein said cross-sections comprise four corners arranged around said centre axis (see corners of 12a-b, figures 3-4), the four corners subdividing the circumferential surface into side surfaces (see side surfaces of 12a-b, figures 3-4). Sorensen is silent regarding each of said side surfaces comprises a curvature having an angle of curvature, and wherein the curvature of each of said side surfaces is the same.
Weber teaches an illumination device (figure 1) with an LED (2, figure 1) and a light transmission part (10, figure 1). The light transmission part has two sections (14 and 16, figure 1). The end of the first section (14, figure 10) that faces the LED (2, figure 1) corresponds to the shape and dimensions of the light emitting surface (4, figure 1) of the LED ([0051]). When the LED has a rectangular, light emitting surface (4, figure 1), than the end face (18, figure 1) of the first section is likewise designed in a rectangular manner ([0051]). In the first section (14, figure 1), the conditions are fulfilled for total reflection ([0012]). In the second section (16, figure 1), light beams with a large angle with respect to the middle axis of the light transmission part are eliminated ([0010]). These light beams are of no significance to the light yield and can even cause thermal loading ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the lightguide of Sorensen with the light transmission part (10, figures 1 and 10) of Weber. Doing so would provide high light fluxes with low thermal loading at the region of the coupling of the light ([0005]). The modified endoscope would have each of said side surfaces comprises a curvature having an angle of curvature (see sides of 14 and 16, figure 10; Weber), and wherein the curvature of each of said side surfaces is the same (see figures 1 and 10).
Regarding claim 49, Sorensen discloses an endoscope (figure 1a) comprising: an insertion cord (3, figure 1a) comprising a distal tip (5, figure 1b) arranged at a distal end of the insertion cord (see figures 1), said distal tip comprising: an electronic image capture device (6, figure 2b) having an image receptor (image receptor 6a, figure 2b) having a height h in a vertical imaging direction and a width h in a horizontal imaging direction (6a looks to be a square | see figures 2b-5), a light source (7a-b, figure 3), a lightguide (12a-b, figure 3) positioned distally from the light source, the lightguide comprising a proximal end (see proximal end of 12a-b, figure 3), a distal end (see distal end of 12a-b, figure 3) and a circumferential surface surrounding a centre axis (see surface of 12a-b, figures 3-4) and extending between said proximal end and said distal end (see surface of 12a-b, figures 3-4 | interpreted “circumferential” to mean the perimeter), wherein said circumferential surface is configured to provide internal reflection of light emitted from the light source (internally reflected [0095]), and said circumferential surface defines cross-sections of said lightguide (see surface of 12a-b, figures 3-4), wherein said cross-sections comprise four corners arranged around said centre axis (see corners of 12a-b, figures 3-4), the four corners subdividing the circumferential surface into side surfaces (see side surfaces of 12a-b, figures 3-4). Sorensen is silent regarding each of said side surfaces comprises a curvature having an angle of curvature, and wherein each of said corners extends at a constant angle with respect to the centre axis.
Weber teaches an illumination device (figure 1) with an LED (2, figure 1) and a light transmission part (10, figure 1). The light transmission part has two sections (14 and 16, figure 1). The end of the first section (14, figure 10) that faces the LED (2, figure 1) corresponds to the shape and dimensions of the light emitting surface (4, figure 1) of the LED ([0051]). When the LED has a rectangular, light emitting surface (4, figure 1), than the end face (18, figure 1) of the first section is likewise designed in a rectangular manner ([0051]). In the first section (14, figure 1), the conditions are fulfilled for total reflection ([0012]). In the second section (16, figure 1), light beams with a large angle with respect to the middle axis of the light transmission part are eliminated ([0010]). These light beams are of no significance to the light yield and can even cause thermal loading ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the lightguide of Sorensen with the light transmission part (10, figures 1 and 10) of Weber. Doing so would provide high light fluxes with low thermal loading at the region of the coupling of the light ([0005]). The modified endoscope would have each of said side surfaces comprises a curvature having an angle of curvature (see sides of 14 and 16, figure 10; Weber), and wherein each of said corners extends at a constant angle with respect to the centre axis (interpreted the sides of 14 and 16 with respect to the centre axis, figures 1 and 10).
Claim(s) 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen (US 2020/0060521) and Weber (US 2019/0033506) with evidence by Sipple (US 2022/0015635) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haraguchi (US 9,829,698).
Regarding claim 45, Sorensen, Weber, and Sipple further disclose a visualization system comprising the endoscope of claim 1 (see claim 1 above). They are silent regarding a video processing apparatus (VPA), wherein the endoscope is connectable to said VPA.
Haraguchi teaches an endoscopic system (13, figure 1) is configured to include an endoscope (11, figure 1) and a video processor (19, figure 1). The video processor performs known image processing on a still image or a moving image (Col. 6, lines 16-20). The video processor outputs the image data to a display device (Col. 6, lines 36-40).
It would have been obvious to modify the system of Sorensen, Weber, and Sipple to connect to a video processor (19, figure 1) as taught by Haraguchi. Doing so would provide image processing and display of a still or moving image (Col. 6, lines 16-20). The modified system has a video processing apparatus (VPA) (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a housing with a display support interface or a monitor | see video processor and display device; Col. 6, lines 16-20 and 36-40), wherein the endoscope is connectable to said VPA (27, figure 1).
Regarding claim 46, Haraguchi further teaches the VPA is configured to receive live video from the endoscope and output a video based on the received live video (see video processor and display device; Col. 6, lines 16-20 and 36-40; Haraguchi).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ito (US 11,045,069) and Vayser (US 8,795,162).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA F WU whose telephone number is (571)272-9851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4 PM.
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, Michael 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.
PAMELA F. WU
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
January 7, 2026
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795