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 Group III, readable on claims 14-20 in the reply filed on 10/18/2021 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 14-33 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/20/2023, 09/17/2025, 12/22,2025 have 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) 14, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2018/0193102 to Inoue.
Regarding claim 14, Inoue discloses a computer-controlled endoscope system, comprising:
an endoscope (2, Fig. 1, [0036]) comprising a flexible tubular body (3, Fig. 1, [0036]) comprising:
a first articulating segment (4, Fig. 2, [0038]), at a distal end of the body (Fig. 2), comprising:
a camera having a field of view along a camera axis (5, Fig. 2, [0040]); and
an orientation sensor sensitive to movement along a motion axis (7b, Fig. 2, [0049], [0050]);
a second articulating segment coupled to a proximal end of the first articulating segment (7c, Fig. 2, [0049]-[0050]); and
a controller in communication with the endoscope (51, Fig. 4, [0070]) and comprising a hardware memory storing instructions ([0084]) for:
analyzing an alignment between the motion axis and the camera axis ([0084]); and
steering the first and second articulating segments of the endoscope, during motion of the endoscope ([0096]), to reduce a difference between the motion axis and the camera axis ([0096]).
Regarding claim 19, Inoue discloses the endoscope system of claim 14, and Inoue further discloses wherein the camera is located at a distal tip of the first articulating segment (5, Fig. 2, [0040]), and the orientation sensor is located proximally of the camera (7b, Fig. 2, [0049], [0050]).
Regarding claim 20, Inoue discloses the endoscope system of claim 14, and Inoue further discloses wherein communication between the endoscope and the controller is through a direct wired connection (51, Fig. 4, [0070]).
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) 15, 16, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0193102 to Inoue and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20190142262 to Inglis et al. (hereinafter “Inglis”).
Regarding claim 15, Inoue discloses the endoscope system of claim 14.
Inoue fails to expressly teach wherein the controller is a video laryngoscope.
However, Inglis teaches of an endoscope system (Inglis: 48, Fig. 2, [0061]) wherein the controller is a video laryngoscope (Inlgis: 12, Fig. 2, [0057]).
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 Inoue, to utilize a video laryngoscope in the manner as taught by Inglis. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of displaying the laryngoscope image together with the endoscope image ([0062] of Inglis).
Regarding claim 16, Inoue, in view of Inglis, teaches the endoscope system of claim 15.
Inoue, in view of Inglis, fails to expressly teach wherein the video laryngoscope further comprises a graphical user interface responsive to a user command to move the camera axis.
However, Inglis further teaches wherein the video laryngoscope further comprises a graphical user interface responsive to a user command to move the camera axis (Inglis: 22, Fig. 2, [0057]).
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 Inoue, in view of Inglis, to utilize a video laryngoscope in the manner as taught by Inglis. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of displaying the laryngoscope image together with the endoscope image ([0062] of Inglis).
Regarding claim 21, Inoue discloses an imaging system, comprising: an endoscope (2, Fig. 1, [0036]) comprising a flexible tubular body (3, Fig. 1, [0036]) comprising: a first articulating segment (4, Fig. 2, [0038]), at a distal end of the body (Fig. 2), comprising: a camera having a field of view along a camera axis (5, Fig. 2, [0040]); and an orientation sensor sensitive to movement along a motion axis (7b, Fig. 2, [0049], [0050]); a second articulating segment coupled to a proximal end of the first articulating segment (7c, Fig. 2, [0049]-[0050]); performs operations comprising: analyzing an alignment between the motion axis and the camera axis ([0084]); and steering the first and second articulating segments of the endoscope, during motion of the endoscope ([0096]), to reduce a difference between the motion axis and the camera axis ([0096]).
Inoue fails to expressly teach a video laryngoscope physically coupled to and in communication with the endoscope and wherein the video laryngoscope performs operations.
However, Inglis teaches of an imaging system (Inglis: 48, Fig 2, [0061]) including a video laryngoscope (Inglis: 12, Fig. 2, [0061]) physically coupled to and in communication with the endoscope and wherein the video laryngoscope performs operations (Inglis: [0061]).
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 Inoue to utilize a video laryngoscope as taught by Inglis. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of operating the endoscope and the laryngoscope ([0061] of Inglis).
Regarding claim 22, Inoue, in view of Inglis, teaches the imaging system of claim 21.
Inoue, in view of Inglis, fails to expressly teach wherein the video laryngoscope further comprises a graphical user interface responsive to a user command to move the camera axis.
However, Inglis further teaches wherein the video laryngoscope further comprises a graphical user interface responsive to a user command to move the camera axis (Inglis: 22, Fig. 2, [0057]).
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 Inoue, in view of Inglis, to utilize a graphical user interface, in the manner taught by Inglis. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of displaying the image ([0057] of Inglis).
Regarding claim 25, Inoue, in view of Inglis, teaches the imaging system of claim 21, and Inoue further teaches wherein the camera is located at a distal tip of the first articulating segment (Inoue: 5, Fig. 2, [0040]), and the orientation sensor is located proximally of the camera (Inoue: 7b, Fig. 2, [0049], [0050]).
Regarding claim 26, Inoue, in view of Inglis, teaches the imaging system of claim 21.
Inoue, in view of Inglis, fails to expressly teach wherein communication between the endoscope and the video laryngoscope is through a direct wired connection.
However, Inglis further teaches wherein communication between the endoscope and the video laryngoscope is through a direct wired connection (Inglis: Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 27, Inoue, in view of Inglis, teaches the imaging system of claim 26, wherein the operations include receiving image data from the camera (5, Fig. 2, [0040]) and orientation data from the orientation sensor (7b, Fig. 2, [0049], [0050]).
Inoue, in view of Inglis, fails to expressly teach the video laryngoscope.
However, Inglis further teaches the video laryngoscope (Inglis: 12, Fig. 2, [0061]).
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 Inoue to utilize a video laryngoscope as taught by Inglis. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of operating the endoscope and the laryngoscope ([0061] of Inglis).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0193102 to Inoue and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0296281 Yeung et al. (hereinafter “Yeung”).
Regarding claim 17, Inoue, discloses the endoscope system of claim 14.
Inoue, fails to expressly teach wherein the instructions for analyzing the alignment comprise analyzing an optical flow of pixels from the camera during motion of the endoscope.
However, Yeung teaches of an endoscope system (Yeung: 200, Fig. 2, [0102]) wherein the instructions for analyzing the alignment comprise analyzing an optical flow of pixels from the camera during motion of the endoscope (Yeung: 1513, Fig. 15, [0212]).
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 Inoue, to utilize instructions for analyzing the alignment in the manner taught by Yeung. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of processing the image ([0212] of Yeung).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0193102 to Inoue and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0378763 to Atarot et al. (hereinafter “Atarot”).
Regarding claim 18, Inoue discloses the endoscope system of claim 14.
Inoue fails to expressly teach wherein the instructions for analyzing the alignment comprise generating an alignment metric.
However, Atarot teaches of an endoscope system (Atarot: Fig. 4A) wherein the instructions for analyzing the alignment comprise generating an alignment metric (Atarot: 5010, Fig. 5, [0234]).
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 Inoue, to utilize instructions for analyzing the alignment in the manner taught by Atarot. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of determining the desired direction of motion ([0234] of Atarot).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0193102 to Inoue and U.S. Publication No. 20190142262 to Inglis et al. (hereinafter “Inglis”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0296281 Yeung et al. (hereinafter “Yeung”).
Regarding claim 23, Inoue, in view of Inglis, teaches the imaging system of claim 21.
Inoue, in view of Inglis, fails to expressly teach wherein analyzing the alignment comprises analyzing an optical flow of pixels from the camera during motion of the endoscope.
However, Yeung teaches of an endoscope system (Yeung: 200, Fig. 2, [0102]) wherein analyzing the alignment comprises analyzing an optical flow of pixels from the camera during motion of the endoscope (Yeung: 1513, Fig. 15, [0212]).
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 Inoue, in view of Inglis and Atarot, to utilize analyzing an optical flow of pixels as taught by Yeung. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of processing the image ([0212] of Yeung).
Claim(s) 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0193102 to Inoue and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20190142262 to Inglis et al. (hereinafter “Inglis”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0378763 to Atarot et al. (hereinafter “Atarot”).
Regarding claim 24, Inoue, in view of Inglis, teaches the imaging system of claim 21.
Inoue, in view of Inglis, fails to expressly teach wherein operations comprise generating an alignment metric based on the analysis of the alignment.
However, Atarot teaches of an analogous system wherein operations comprise generating an alignment metric based on the analysis of the alignment (Atarot: 5010, Fig. 5, [0234]).
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 Inoue, in view of Inglis, to utilize an alignment metric as taught by Atarot. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of determining the desired direction of motion ([0234] of Atarot).
Regarding claim 28, Inoue discloses an imaging system, comprising: an endoscope (2, Fig. 1, [0036]) comprising a flexible tubular body (3, Fig. 1, [0036]) comprising: a first articulating segment (4, Fig. 2, [0038]), at a distal end of the body (Fug. 2), comprising: a camera having a field of view along a camera axis (5, Fig. 2, [0040]); and an orientation sensor sensitive to movement along a motion axis (7b, Fig. 2, [0049], [0050]); a second articulating segment coupled to a proximal end of the first articulating segment (7c, Fig. 2, [0049]-[0050]); performs operations comprising: receiving a motion signal, from the orientation sensor (7b, Fig. 2, [0049], [0050]), indicating movement of the endoscope along a motion axis ([0084]), and steering the first and second articulating segments of the endoscope, during motion of the endoscope ([0096]), to reduce a difference between the motion axis and the camera axis ([0096]).
Inoue fails to expressly teach wherein the video laryngoscope performs operations and a video laryngoscope physically coupled to and in communication with the endoscope; based on the motion signal, generating an alignment metric by analyzing an alignment between the motion axis and the camera axis, wherein the alignment metric indicates a degree of alignment between the camera axis and the motion axis.
However, Inglis teaches of an imaging system (Inglis: 48, Fig 2, [0061]) including a video laryngoscope (Inglis: 12, Fig. 2, [0061]) physically coupled to and in communication with the endoscope wherein the video laryngoscope performs operations (Inglis: [0061]).
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 Inoue to utilize a video laryngoscope, as taught by Inglis. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of operating the endoscope and the laryngoscope ([0061] of Inglis).
Inoue, in view of Inglis, fails to expressly teach based on the motion signal, generating an alignment metric by analyzing an alignment between the motion axis and the camera axis, wherein the alignment metric indicates a degree of alignment between the camera axis and the motion axis.
However, Atarot teaches of an analogous system including based on the motion signal, generating an alignment metric by analyzing an alignment between the motion axis and the camera axis (Atarot: 5010, Fig. 5, [0234]), wherein the alignment metric indicates a degree of alignment between the camera axis and the motion axis (Atarot: 5010, Fig. 5, [0234]).
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 Inoue, in view of Inglis, to utilize an alignment metric as taught by Atarot. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of determining the desired direction of motion ([0234] of Atarot).
Regarding claim 29, Inoue, in view of Inglis and Atarot, teaches the imaging system of claim 28.
Inoue, in view of Inglis and Atarot, fails to expressly teach wherein the video laryngoscope further comprises a graphical user interface responsive to a user command to move the camera axis.
However, Inglis further teaches wherein the video laryngoscope further comprises a graphical user interface responsive to a user command to move the camera axis (Inglis: 22, Fig. 2, [0057]).
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 Inoue, in view of Inglis and Atarot, to utilize a GUI as taught by Inglis. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of displaying the image ([0057] of Inglis).
Regarding claim 30, Inoue, in view of Inglis and Atarot, teaches the imaging system of claim 28, and Inoue further teaches wherein the camera is located at a distal tip of the first articulating segment (Inoue: 5, Fig. 2, [0040]), and the orientation sensor is located proximally of the camera (Inoue: 7b, Fig. 2, [0049], [0050]).
Regarding claim 31, Inoue, in view of Inglis and Atarot, teaches the imaging system of claim 28.
Inoue, in view of Inglis and Atarot, fails to expressly teaches wherein the endoscope is removable from video laryngoscope.
However, Inglis further teaches wherein the endoscope is removable from video laryngoscope (Inglis: Fig. 3).
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 Inoue, in view of Inglis and Atarot, to utilize a removable endoscope as taught by Inglis. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of being portable ([0063] of Inglis).
Regarding claim 33, Inoue, in view of Inglis and Atarot, teaches the imaging system of claim 28, and Inoue further discloses wherein steering the first and second articulating segments of the endoscope includes generating a steering signal that causes articulation of at least one of the first and second articulating segments (Inoue: [0096]).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0193102 to Inoue and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20190142262 to Inglis et al. (hereinafter “Inglis”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0378763 to Atarot et al. (hereinafter “Atarot”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0296281 Yeung et al. (hereinafter “Yeung”).
Regarding claim 32, Inoue, in view of Inglis and Atarot, teaches the imaging system of claim 28.
Inoue, in view of Inglis and Atarot, fails to expressly teach wherein analyzing the alignment comprises analyzing an optical flow of pixels from the camera during motion of the endoscope.
However, Yeung teaches of an endoscope system (Yeung: 200, Fig. 2, [0102]) wherein analyzing the alignment comprises analyzing an optical flow of pixels from the camera during motion of the endoscope (Yeung: 1513, Fig. 15, [0212]).
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 Inoue, in view of Inglis and Atarot, to utilize analyzing an optical flow of pixels as taught by Yeung. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of processing the image ([0212] of Yeung).
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