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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species F, readable on claims 1, 15-18, 21-23, 26, and 39-40 in the reply filed on 10/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/28/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,944,655 to Becker.
Regarding claim 1, Becker discloses an endoscopic device configured to provide three-dimensional visualization of an intraocular object, the device comprising:
a first portion comprising:
a distal shaft (12, Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 52-60) having a lumen (Fig. 1) extending along a longitudinal axis (5, Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 61-65), wherein the distal shaft has an outer diameter sized for positioning in an intraocular space (Col. 3, lines 13-24);
an illumination guide extending through the lumen of the distal shaft (7, 8, 10, Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 33-45);
at least one image transmitter extending through the lumen of the distal shaft (6, Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 52-60); and
at least one objective lens positioned within the lumen at a distal end of the at least one image transmitter (1, 2, Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 13-16); and
a second portion coupled to the first portion (Fig. 1), the second portion comprising:
a housing (12, Fig. 1);
an illumination source positioned within the housing in optical communication with a proximal end of the illumination guide (Col. 3, lines 51-60); and
at least one image sensor positioned within the housing in optical communication with a proximal end of the at least one image transmitter (9, Fig. 1., Col. 3, lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 15, Becker discloses the device of claim 1, and Becker further discloses wherein the at least one objective lens comprises a first objective lens (1, Fig. 1. Col. 3, lines 13-16) and a second objective lens (2, Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 13-16) horizontally offset from the first lens (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Becker discloses the device of claim 15, and Becker further discloses wherein a distance between an optical axis of the first objective lens and an optical axis of the second objective lens defines a parallax angle for a distance from the first and second objective lenses to the intraocular object (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Becker discloses the device of claim 15, and Becker further discloses wherein a subtended parallax angle forms two images of the intraocular object at different angular perspectives (Fig. 1).
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) 21, 22, 23, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,944,655 to Becker in view of U.S. Publication No. 2012/0130161 to Lauryssen et al. (hereinafter “Lauryssen”).
Regarding claim 21, Becker discloses the device of claim 18.
Becker fails to expressly teach wherein the distal shaft is configured to slide from a first position in which the first and second objective lenses are sheathed by the distal shaft to a second position in which the first and second objective lenses are unsheathed from the distal shaft.
However, Lauryssen teaches of a device (Lauryssen: 10, Fig. 1, [0028]) wherein the distal shaft (Lauryssen: 24, Fig. 1, [0028]) is configured to slide from a first position in which the first and second objective lenses are sheathed by the distal shaft to a second position in which the first and second objective lenses are unsheathed from the distal shaft (Lauryssen: Fig. 4A, Fig. 4B, [0041]).
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 Becker, to utilize a distal shaft in the manner as taught by Lauryssen. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing an expanded configuration ([0041] of Lauryssen).
Regarding claim 22, Becker, in view of Lauryssen, teaches the device of claim 21.
Becker, in view of Lauryssen, fails to expressly teach wherein, when the distal shaft is in the second position, the first objective lens and the second objective lens move outward away from one another increasing the distance between their respective optical axes.
However, Lauryssen further teaches wherein, when the distal shaft is in the second position, the first objective lens and the second objective lens move outward away from one another increasing the distance between their respective optical axes (Lauryssen: Fig. 4A, Fig. 4B, [0041]).
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 Becker, in view of Lauryssen to utilize a distal shaft in the manner as taught by Lauryssen. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing an expanded configuration ([0041] of Lauryssen).
Regarding claim 23, Becker, in view of Lauryssen, teaches the device of claim 22.
Becker, in view of Lauryssen, fails to expressly teach further comprising a shape memory element configured to urge the first and second objective lenses to move outward from one another upon withdrawing the distal shaft into the second position.
However, Lauryssen further teaches comprising a shape memory element configured to urge the first and second objective lenses to move outward from one another upon withdrawing the distal shaft into the second position (Lauryssen: 18, 20, Fig. 4A, Fig. 4B, [0041]).
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 Becker, in view of Lauryssen, to utilize a shape memory element in the manner taught by Lauryssen. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing an expanded configuration ([0041] of Lauryssen).
Regarding claim 26, Becker, in view of Lauryssen, teaches the device of claim 23.
Becker, in view of Lauryssen, fails to expressly teach wherein a maximum outer dimension of the first and second objective lenses in the second position is greater than an inner diameter of the distal shaft.
However, Lauryssen further teaches wherein a maximum outer dimension of the first and second objective lenses in the second position is greater than an inner diameter of the distal shaft (Lauryssen: Fig. 4A, Fig. 4B, [0041]).
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 Becker, in view of Lauryssen, to utilize lenses in the manner as taught by Becker, in view of Lauryssen. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing an expanded configuration ([0041] of Lauryssen).
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,944,655 to Becker in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0192824 to Ichihashi.
Regarding claim 39, Becker teaches the device of claim 1.
Becker fails to expressly teach wherein the at least one objective lens is a ball lens or a liquid lens.
However, Ichihashi teaches of a device (Ichihashi: 100, Fig. 1, [0033]) wherein the at least one objective lens is a ball lens or a liquid lens (Ichihashi: 4b, Fig. 2, [0070]).
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 Becker, to utilize a ball lens in the manner as taught by Ichihashi. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of diffusing and irradiating the illuminating light into the object ([0071] of Ichihashi).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,944,655 to Becker in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0355024 to Pic et al. (hereinafter “Pic”).
Regarding claim 40, Becker discloses the device of claim 1.
Becker fails to expressly teach wherein the outer diameter of the distal shaft is 0.020 inches to 0.072 inches.
However, Pic teaches wherein the outer diameter of the distal shaft is 0.020 inches to 0.072 inches (Pic: [0029]).
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 Becker to utilize a distal shaft in the manner as taught by Pic. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing a shaft that is sized, shaped, and configured to receive a plurality of tubes and/or lines ([0029] of Pic).
Conclusion
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