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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 26, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 7 and 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 7, term “the second data cable” lacks antecedent basis.
As to claim 22, term “the image sensor disposed within the tool” lacks antecedent basis as only an “image sensor disposed with the endoscope” has been previously claimed. For purposes of examination, this term will be assumed to be “the image sensor disposed within the endoscope”, in accordance with Applicant’s current amendments to other claims (this assumption will also avoid a Drawings Objection).
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scheib et al. (US 2020/0015924, hereinafter “Scheib”).
As to claim 22, Scheib discloses a system comprising:
a tool (surgical device 102, Fig.1) configured for insertion into a light deficient environment (sized and shaped to be inserted into a patient, e.g. Fig.5);
an endoscope (imaging device 120, Fig.1) configured to provide visualization of the light deficient environment (imaging device can be a spectral camera, [0076]);
a source of electromagnetic radiation (either spectral light source 150 or structured light source 152, the latter being analogous to the emitter 106 emitting a patterned light, [0093])) that emits pulses of electromagnetic radiation according to a pulse cycle (pulsed, [0084]); and
a controller (control system 133 including control circuit 132, Fig.2 and controls 148 for the imaging device 120,[0082]) that instructs the source to pulse according to the pulse cycle ([0084]; also note 622 and 628 in Fig.11, [0115],[0116] which is a more detailed);
wherein an image sensor (e.g. 122, Fig.1, [0094]) disposed within the endoscope (120) outputs a data frame comprising information for determining a position of the tool relative to the endoscope (capable of outputting image signals (data frame) indicating sensed return light, such signals representative of a position of an object, and, if pointed at tool 102, would indicate the position of the tool relative to the endoscope, [0084],[0103],[0116],[0170]); and
wherein the image sensor disposed within the endoscope outputs the data frame in response to the source of electromagnetic radiation emitting a pulse of electromagnetic radiation that is diffracted into a mapping pattern (image sensor 122 capable of outputting an image (data frame) in response to a source of electromagnetic radiation emitting a pulse of electromagnetic radiation that is diffracted into a mapping pattern, [0084],[0093],[0103],[0116],[0170]).
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) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US 2019/0008367, hereinafter “Ishikawa”) in view of Tani et al. (US 2009/0147078, hereinafter “Tani”).
As to claim 21, Ishikawa discloses a system comprising:
a tool (e.g. endoscope arm 22, Fig.2) configured for insertion into a light deficient environment (shown inserted into a body in Fig.1);
an endoscope (endoscope arm 23, Fig.2) configured to provide visualization of the light deficient environment (imaging apparatus, [0032]);
a source of electromagnetic radiation (illumination light source 212, Fig.2) that emits electromagnetic radiation ([0035]);
a controller (light source controller 213, Fig.2) that instructs the source to emit the electromagnetic radiation;
wherein an image sensor disposed within the endoscope outputs a data frame (images, [0033]) comprising information for determining a position of the tool relative to the endoscope (if pointed at the tool, the location of the tool in the image will indicate the position of the tool relative to the endoscope);
an emitter (cart 20, Figs.1,2) that is located remote to each of the tool and the endoscope (cart 20 is remote to 22 and 23, Fig.2), wherein the source of electromagnetic radiation is disposed within the emitter (illuminating light source 212 disposed within emitter 20, Fig.2);
a first waveguide that communicates the electromagnetic radiation from the emitter to a distal end of the endoscope for illuminating the light deficient environment (optical fibers connect illumination light source 212 with illuminating optical system 2342 of the endoscope 23, [0036],Fig.2); and
a second waveguide that communicates the electromagnetic radiation to a distal end of the tool (optical fibers connect illumination light source 212 with illuminating optical system 2242 of the tool 22, [0036],Fig.2).
Ishikawa fails to disclose the illumination scheme, and thus fails to disclose that the source of electromagnetic radiation emits a cycle of pulses, controlled by the controller. However, it is well known in the image capture/endoscope art that illumination can be provided as a continuous emission or as a cycle of pulses. Tani is just one of numerous references that teach that continuous or pulsed illumination light are known techniques as an illumination scheme for an endoscope, depending on need (see paragraphs [0004]-[0006]). It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any illumination scheme in Ishikawa that is known in the art to be suitable for endoscopic imaging, including a pulsed illumination light (inherently controlled by the controller) to meet current imaging needs, such as for imaging a moving object (Tani: [0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-17and 19 are allowed.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See references cited on PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P LEUBECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4769. The examiner can normally be reached Generally, M-F, 5:30-2:00.
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, Anhtuan T 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.
/JOHN P LEUBECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights