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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending and rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-18 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “a forceps port side” on Line 16. This renders the claim indefinite as metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what structural element has the “forceps port side” as claimed. For the purpose of examination, “a forceps port side” is being interpreted as “a forceps port side of the imaging element”.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “a part farthest from the optical axis of the imaging lens” on Lines 21-22. This renders the claim indefinite as metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what structural element has the “part” as claimed. For the purpose of examination, “a part of the holder farthest from the optical axis of the imaging lens” is being interpreted as “a part farthest from the optical axis of the imaging lens”.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 recites the limitation “the same side” on Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the same side” is being interpreted as “a same side”.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 recites the limitation “D1 is a distance between the optical axis of the imaging lens and the part farthest from the optical axis of the imagine lens” on Lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this “D1 distance” is the same as the “D1 distance” previously recited on Lines 2-3 of Claim 2, or a separate, different D1 distance. For the purpose of examination, “D1 is a distance between the optical axis of the imaging lens and the part farthest from the optical axis of the imagine lens” is being interpreted as “D1 is the distance between the optical axis of the imaging lens and the part farthest from the optical axis of the imagine lens”.
NOTE: Examiner recommends amending Claim 4 to read “wherein D1 – D3 > 0 is satisfied in a case in which D3 is a distance…”.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 recites the limitation “the central axis of the holder” on Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the central axis of the holder” is being interpreted as “the central axis of the maximum outer shape in the holding part of the holder”.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 recites the limitation “a second axis side of the circuit board” on Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “a second axis side of the circuit board” is being interpreted as “a second axis side of a circuit board”.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 recites the limitation “a second axis side of the circuit board” on Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “a second axis side of the circuit board” is being interpreted as “a second axis side of a circuit board”.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 recites the limitations “the holding part” and “the central axis of the maximum outer shape” on Lines 2 & 6, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the holding part” and “the central axis of the maximum outer shape” are being interpreted as “a holding part” and “a central axis of a maximum outer shape”, respectively.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 recites the limitations “the holding part” and “the central axis of the maximum outer shape” on Lines 2 & 6, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the holding part” and “the central axis of the maximum outer shape” are being interpreted as “a holding part” and “a central axis of a maximum outer shape”, respectively.
Regarding Claims 3, 5-7 & 9-14, Claims 3, 5-7 & 9-14 are rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yabe (U.S. 4,757,805).
Regarding Claim 1, Yabe discloses an endoscope (Col. 3, Lines 66-68) comprising:
a forceps port (Yabe Annotated Fig. 6, 10; Col. 2, Lines 52-53); and
an imaging unit (Yabe Annotated Yabe Fig. 6, 8; Col. 2, Lines 51-52),
wherein at least the forceps port and the imaging unit are disposed side by side at a distal end of the endoscope (see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6),
the imaging unit includes an imaging lens (Fig. 2, 14; Col. 2, Lines 54-56), an imaging element (Yabe Annotated Fig. 6, 30; Col. 3, Lines 1-3) having a light-receiving surface (Fig. 3, 51; Col. 2, Lines 66-68) disposed parallel to an optical axis (O; see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6) of the imaging lens (Col. 2, Lines 66-68), an optical element (Yabe Annotated Fig. 6, 24; Col. 2, Lines 59-62) that bends the optical axis of the imaging lens by 90° to make light that has transmitted through the imaging lens incident on the imaging element (Col. 2, Lines 62-64), and a holder that holds the imaging lens and the optical element (Yabe Annotated Fig. 6, 28; Col. 3, Lines 1-3),
a forceps pipe (Yabe Annotated Fig. 6, 56; Col. 3, Lines 43-44) is connected to the forceps port (Col. 3, Lines 44-45), a forceps tube (Yabe Annotated Fig. 6, 58; Col. 3, Line 44) is connected to the forceps pipe (Col. 3, Lines 45-48), and the forceps pipe and the forceps tube are disposed on a light-receiving surface side (Col. 3, Lines 48-62),
in a case in which the imaging unit is viewed in a first direction perpendicular to the light-receiving surface of the imaging element (Yabe Annotated Fig. 6), a central axis of the imaging element (S; see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6) that passes through a center of an outer shape of the imaging element and is parallel to the optical axis of the imaging lens (see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6) is located closer to a forceps port side (FS; see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6) than the optical axis of the imaging lens is (see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6), a part of the forceps pipe connected to the forceps port or the forceps tube overlaps the light-receiving surface of the imaging element (see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6), and a central axis of each of the forceps pipe and the forceps tube (F; see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6) is located outside the imaging element (see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6), and
on a plane that passes through the optical axis of the imaging lens and is parallel to the light-receiving surface of the imaging element, a part farthest from the optical axis of the imaging lens (P; see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6) is opposite to the central axis of the imaging element with respect to the optical axis of the imaging lens in a case in which the imaging unit is viewed in the first direction (see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
1290
1330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Yabe discloses the endoscope according to Claim 1. Yabe further discloses wherein D1 < D2 is satisfied in a case in which D1 is a distance between the optical axis of the imaging lens and the part farthest from the optical axis of the imaging lens on the plane that passes through the optical axis of the imaging lens and is parallel to the light-receiving surface of the imaging element in a case in which the imaging unit is viewed in the first direction (D1; see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6), and D2 is a distance between the optical axis of the imaging lens and a first end portion of the imaging element (FS; see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6), which is located on the same side as the central axis of the imaging element (see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6), with respect to the optical axis of the imaging lens in a case in which the imaging unit is viewed in the first direction (D2>D1; see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Yabe discloses the endoscope according to Claim 1. Yabe further discloses wherein D1 - D3 > 0 is satisfied in a case in which D1 is a distance between the optical axis of the imaging lens and the part farthest from the optical axis of the imaging lens on the plane that passes through the optical axis of the imaging lens and is parallel to the light-receiving surface of the imaging element in a case in which the imaging unit is viewed in the first direction (D1; see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6), and D3 is a distance between the optical axis of the imaging lens and a second end portion of the imaging element (LS; see Yabe Annotate Fig. 6), which is located on an opposite side to the central axis of the imaging element (see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6), with respect to the optical axis of the imaging lens (D1-D3>0; see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Yabe discloses the endoscope according to Claim 2. Yabe further discloses wherein D1 - D3 > 0 is satisfied in a case in which D1 is a distance between the optical axis of the imaging lens and the part farthest from the optical axis of the imaging lens on the plane that passes through the optical axis of the imaging lens and is parallel to the light-receiving surface of the imaging element in a case in which the imaging unit is viewed in the first direction (D1; see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6), and D3 is a distance between the optical axis of the imaging lens and a second end portion of the imaging element (LS; see Yabe Annotate Fig. 6), which is located on an opposite side to the central axis of the imaging element (see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6), with respect to the optical axis of the imaging lens (D1-D3>0; see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-18 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.
Regarding Claims 5-7, Yabe discloses the endoscope according to Claims 1-3, respectively. Yabe further discloses wherein, in a case in which the imaging unit is viewed in the first direction, a central axis of a maximum outer shape in a holding part of the holder that holds the optical element (H; see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6) is parallel to the optical axis of the imaging lens (see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6).
Yabe fails to explicitly disclose wherein the central axis of the maximum outer shape in the holding part of the holder is opposite the central axis of the imaging element with respect to optical axis of the imaging lens. On the contrary, Yabe, as shown in Yabe Annotated Fig. 6, discloses the central axis of the maximum outer shape in the holding part of the holder H is on a same side as the central axis of the imaging element S with respect to the optical axis of the imaging lens O.
Regarding Claims 9-11, Yabe discloses the endoscope according to Claims 1-3. Yabe further discloses wherein a circuit board to which the imaging element is electrically connected is provided (Yabe Annotated Fig. 6, 44; Col. 3, Lines 13-15),
the circuit board includes at least a first plane portion on which the imaging element is mounted (see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6), and
a first axis that passes through a center of an outer shape of the first plane portion and is parallel to the optical axis of the imaging lens (see Yabe Annotated Fig. 6).
Yabe fails to explicitly disclose wherein the circuit board includes a second plane portion connected to the first plane portion by a first bent portion; and a second axis that passes through a center of an outer shape of the first bent portion and the second plane portion and is parallel to the optical axis of the imaging lens are parallel to each other, and the second axis is opposite to the first axis with the optical axis of the imaging lens interposed therebetween.
While foldable flexible circuit boards are well known (e.g., US 2018/0344132 to Kitano and US 2011/0245608 to Takahashi et al.), modifying and/or replacing the circuit board 44 of Yabe to include a foldable flexible circuit board would not preserve the structural relationship between the circuit board 44 and the optical axis of the imaging lens O that is crucial to the construction of the endoscope of Yabe. As such, such modification would destroy the functionality of Yabe as disclosed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2018/0344132; US 2017/0265721; US 2017/0255001; US 2016/0157705; US 2014/0078280; US 2012/0220825; US 2011/0245608; US 2009/0062616; U.S. 5,427,087 and U.S. 4,646,721
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL 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.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795