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 Amendment
The cancellation of claims 3, and the amendments to claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 in the response filed on 03/12/2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 4-9 remain pending in the application
Claims 2-3 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are examined.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims. The applicant has modified claim 1 to require “wherein the optical fiber and the front image capturing camera are arranged side by side, and the optical fiber is positioned offset from the lateral opening of the head tube; wherein a front projection camera is disposed in the head tube and arranged in a side-by- side manner with the front image capturing camera, and a lateral projection camera is disposed in the head tube and arranged in a side-by-side manner with the lateral image capturing camera”, limitations heretofore not presented for examination in this application. As such, the scope of the claims was substantially changed and new grounds for rejection are presented.
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) 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin et al. (US 20190254508 A1, hereinafter “Levin”).
Regarding claim 1, Levin discloses an endoscope device comprising: a head tube having a front opening (101, Fig. 1, [0107]) and a lateral opening (102, Fig. 1, [0107]);
a front image capturing camera disposed in the head tube and facing the front opening (105, Fig. 1, [0109]); an optical fiber disposed in the head tube and located at one side of the front image capturing camera for providing lights to the front image capturing lens camera ([0113]-[0114]);
a lateral image capturing camera disposed in the head tube and facing the lateral opening (115, Fig. 1, [0120]); and
a lateral light source disposed in the head tube and arranged adjacent to the lateral image capturing camera for providing lights to the lateral image capturing lens camera (118, Fig. 1, [0122]);
wherein the optical fiber has one end thereof connected to a light-emitting element disposed outside the head tube for transmitting the lights generated by the light-emitting element to the front image capturing camera ([0113]-[0114]); wherein the optical fiber and the front image capturing camera are arranged side by side ([0113]-[0114], the examiner notes the optical fiber would be connected to 108, which is beside the camera 105), and the optical fiber is positioned offset from the lateral opening of the head tube ([0113]-[0114], the examiner notes the optical fiber would be connected to 108, which would be offset from opening 102);
Levin fails to expressly teach wherein the optical fiber and the front image capturing camera are arranged side by side, and the optical fiber is positioned offset from the lateral opening of the head tube; wherein a front projection camera is disposed in the head tube and arranged in a side-by- side manner with the front image capturing camera, and a lateral projection camera is disposed in the head tube and arranged in a side-by-side manner with the lateral image capturing camera.
However, Levin, in a separate embodiment, further discloses wherein a front projection camera (135, Fig. 2, [0135]) is disposed in the head tube and arranged in a side-by- side manner with the front image capturing camera (105, Fig. 2, [0109]).
Additionally, Levin, in a separate embodiment, further discloses a lateral projection camera (602A, Fig. 6B, [0185]) is disposed in the head tube and arranged in a side-by-side manner with the lateral image capturing camera (602B, Fig. 6B, [0185]).
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 Levin, to utilize a front projection camera and a lateral projection camera, as taught by Levin. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of receiving images ([0135] of Levin).
Regarding claim 4, Levin discloses the endoscope device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a lens disposed in the head tube and arranged adjacent the front image capturing camera and the front projection camera (107, Fig. 2, [0109]).
Regarding claim 6, Levin discloses the endoscope device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the front image capturing camera is disposed to a first flexible printed circuit board (106, Fig. 1, [0110]); the lateral image capturing camera is disposed to a rigid printed circuit board (116, Fig. 2, [0120]); the first flexible printed circuit board, the rigid printed circuit board, and the second flexible printed circuit board are disposed in the head tube (Fig. 2).
Levin fails to expressly teach the lateral light source, the front projection camera, and the lateral projection lens camera are disposed to a second flexible printed circuit board.
However, the Examiner is of the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the device of Levin so that the lateral light source, the front projection camera, and the lateral projection lens camera are disposed to a second flexible printed circuit board, since Levin already discloses these components connected to circuits boards ([0110]-[0111], [0120]-[0140]), and since the mere rearrangement of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding claim 7, Levin discloses the endoscope device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a lens disposed in the head tube and arranged adjacent the front image capturing camera (107, Fig. 2, [0109]).
Regarding claim 8, Levin discloses the endoscope device as claimed in claim 7, but Levin fails to expressly teach wherein the optical fiber has one end thereof inserted into a concavity of the lens.
However, Kato teaches of an endoscope device (1, Fig. 1, [0037]) wherein the optical fiber (15, Fig. 1, [0039]-[0040]) has one end thereof inserted into a concavity of the lens (17, Fig. 1, [0039]).
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 Levin to utilize an optical fiber in the manner as taught by Kato. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of irradiating an observation region ([0041] of Kato).
Regarding claim 9, Levin discloses the endoscope device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the front image capturing camera is disposed to a first flexible printed circuit board (106, Fig. 1, [0110]); the lateral image capturing camera is disposed to a rigid printed circuit board(116, Fig. 2, [0120]); the lateral light source is disposed to a second flexible printed circuit board ([0110]-[0111], [0120]-[0140]); the first flexible printed circuit board, the rigid printed circuit board, and the second flexible printed circuit board are disposed in the head tube (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin et al. (US 20190254508 A1, hereinafter “Levin”) and further in view of Kato et al. (US 2011/0157574 A1, hereinafter “Kato”).
Regarding claim 5, Levin discloses the endoscope device as claimed in claim 4, but Levin fails to expressly teach wherein the optical fiber has one end thereof inserted into a concavity of the lens.
However, Kato teaches of an endoscope device (1, Fig. 1, [0037]) wherein the optical fiber (15, Fig. 1, [0039]-[0040]) has one end thereof inserted into a concavity of the lens (17, Fig. 1, [0039]).
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 Levin to utilize an optical fiber in the manner as taught by Kato. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of irradiating an observation region ([0041] of Kato).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights