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 .
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) 1, 3, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livneh et al. (US 2012/0203082, hereinafter “Livneh”) in view of Schoellhammer et al. (US 2024/0198066, hereinafter “Schoellhammer”).
As to claim 1, Livneh discloses an imaging system comprising:
a laparoscopic medical instrument (trocar 1600, Fig.16, [0068]) including a distal portion (portion inserted into patient, Fig.16) configured to be inserted into a patient and a data transmitting antenna disposed at the distal portion (antenna 110 extends to distal end, Fig.16, and includes an inner antenna 115, Fig.1, [0038] which allows bidirectional RF data transfer);
a capsule endoscope (any one of camera devices 106, Fig.16) including: a camera (implicit from the image capturing function: each camera will include an electronic image sensor for capturing images to be transmitted out via wireless link, [0037]) configured to capture a first video stream ([0041]); a power source (implicit from the need for power to operate: presumably a battery since no other wired or wireless power source is disclosed) and a second antenna configured to transmit data over a second wireless spectrum (60 GHz, [0071]) including the first video stream (implicit from the wireless transmission function: each camera will include an antenna for transmitting the video data via radio frequency transmission, [0039]);
an endoscopic camera (another one of the camera devices 106, Fig.16) configured to capture a second video stream (the camera will include an electronic image sensor for capturing video images to be transmitted out via an RF wireless link, [0037],[0041]); and
a camera control unit (external receiver 119, Fig.16) configured to receive the first video stream and the second video stream (processes received video, [0045],[0068]).
Livneh fails to disclose a power source coupled to the data transmitting antenna configured to transmit wireless power and an antenna in the capsule configured to receive the wireless power from the power transmitting antenna. Schoellhammer teaches in the capsule art that, instead of using functionally limiting batteries to power a capsule device inside the body ([0005]), an antenna powered by a power source ([0016]) can be used to wirelessly transmit power using a first wireless spectrum of 2 GHz to 10 GHz (see Fig.7, RF transmitter 402 with antenna 406, [0056]), which does not overlap with the second wireless spectrum (60 GHz, Livneh, [0071], as set forth above). In doing so, the capsule is equipped with an antenna configured to receive the wireless power (Fig.7, antenna 408, [0056]). Since Livneh already provides an RF antenna on the medical instrument for transmitting and receiving RF data signals ([0038],[0041]), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wirelessly powered the capsule endoscope, as taught by Schoellhammer. This would obviate the need for a batteries in the capsule endoscope, allowing for smaller size (for ease of placement in the body) (Schoellhammer: [0005]), obviating potential injury to the patient (Schoellhammer: [0005]), and extend the use-time of the capsule camera past the life-time of any battery (for extended length procedures).
As to claim 3, the first wireless spectrum is from about 3 GHz to about 14 GHz (Schoellhammer: from 2GHz to up to 10GHz, [0068]).
As to claim 6, the endoscopic camera is further configured to transmit the second video stream over the second wireless spectrum (other one of camera devices 106 transmits in the second wireless spectrum, [0071]).
As to claim 7, the medical instrument is an access port (trocar 1600, Fig.16 constitutes a access port into the body).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livneh et al. (US 2012/0203082, hereinafter “Livneh”) in view of Schoellhammer et al. (US 2024/0198066, hereinafter “Schoellhammer”), as set forth above with respect to claim 4, and further in view of Obata (US 2006/0178558).
As to claim 5, although Livneh discloses a camera control (external receiver 119) for processing the multiple video streams for display ([0038]), Livneh fails to disclose the particulars of such processing and display, and specifically that the camera control is configured to combine the first and second video streams. However, Obata teaches in the art of endoscope systems that acquire plural video streams, to provide the image processor with the ability to combine the video streams such that they can be simultaneously displayed on the display (Obata:Abstract, [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the camera control of Livneh with the ability to combine the first and second video streams to provide the predictable result of allowing simultaneous display of the video streams, which could benefit the surgeon by enhancing the visualization of the procedure.
Claim(s) 14, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livneh et al. (US 2012/0203082, hereinafter “Livneh”) in view of Schoellhammer et al. (US 2024/0198066, hereinafter “Schoellhammer”) and further in view of Schena (US 2007/0173975).
As to claim 14, Livneh in view of Schoellhammer make obvious the features of claim 14, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, except for a robotic arm and control tower associated with the elements of Livneh/Schoellhammer. However, it is known in the art of surgical procedures to use robotic arms, with associated control tower, in combination with the elements of an imaging system to support, hold, and automatically maneuver the elements (e.g. trocar, endoscope, surgical instrument) during a procedure (Schena: robotic arms 110, 102, 116, [0029], Fig.1, one of which can hold a trocar/cannula, [0031], Fig.2,21, and control tower 122, Fig.1). Schena teaches that robotic assistance allows the surgeon to control motion of the instruments more easily and with greater precision ([0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have provided a robotic assistance system to the imaging system of Livneh/Schoellhammer, including a robotic arm control tower, to improve the procedure by allowing control of motion of the instruments more easily and with greater precision (Schena:[0027]).
As to claim 16, the first wireless spectrum is from about 3 GHz to about 14 GHz (Schoellhammer: from 2GHz to up to 10GHz, [0068]).
As to claim 19, the endoscopic camera is further configured to transmit the second video stream over the second wireless spectrum (other one of camera devices 106 transmits in second wireless spectrum, [0071]).
As to claim 20, the medical instrument is an access port (trocar 1600, Fig.16 constitutes a access port into the body).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livneh et al. (US 2012/0203082, hereinafter “Livneh”) in view of Schoellhammer et al. (US 2024/0198066, hereinafter “Schoellhammer”) and Schena (US 2007/0173975, as set forth above with respect to claim 17, and further in view of Obata (US 2006/0178558).
As to claim 18, although Livneh discloses a camera control (external receiver 119) for processing the multiple video streams for display ([0038]), Livneh fails to disclose the particulars of such processing and display, and specifically that the camera control is configured to combine the first and second video streams. However, Obata teaches in the art of endoscope systems that acquire plural video streams, to provide the image processor with the ability to combine the video streams such that they can be simultaneously displayed on the display (Obata:Abstract, [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the camera control of Livneh with the ability to combine the first and second video streams to provide the predictable result of allowing simultaneous display of the video streams, which could benefit the surgeon by enhancing the visualization of the procedure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the applied references, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests “a power source coupled to the power transmitting antenna configured to transmit wireless power over a first wireless spectrum…a second antenna configured to transmit data over a second wireless spectrum that is non-overlapping with the first spectrum, wherein the data includes the first video stream”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In fact, the Examiner has pointed out the obvious combination of Livneh and Schoellhammer does suggests the recitations appearing above, including the non-overlapping of the wireless power spectrum and the wireless data spectrum. See rejection appearing above with respect to claim 1 for example.
Applicant further argues that each of the Livneh, Schoellhammer and Swain references discloses certain limitations of the claims and lacks disclosure of other limitations of the claims (spanning pages 6 and 7 of Applicant’s remarks). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As can be seen above, the Examiner has rejected each of the claims with a combination of references.
With respect to the combination of references, Applicant argues that the combination of references would render the references unsatisfactory for their intended purposes/principle of operation but fails to evidence how the modifications suggested by the combination of references affect the “intended purposes” or “principles of operation” of the references. Applicant further assigns Livnehs intended purpose/principle of operation as to provide “a data relay system operating in one band”. This is NOT an “intended purpose” or “operating principle” of Livneh, it is just a feature of Livneh’s system. In fact, Livneh provides no evidence that discourages use of a wireless power transfer to the endoscopic capsules. But more importantly, the modification to include a wireless power transfer to the endoscope capsules does not affect the remainder of Livneh’s system, including data transfer of the video streams. All this modification does is provide an alternative power source (instead of a battery), the power source or its powering function NOT being the principle of operation of the Livneh’s system.
Because Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, the rejections are being maintained as set forth above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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