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
Amendments to claims 1, 4, 6, 13, 17, 19, 20 of 12/31/2025 acknowledged and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9, para. 1, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 10/2/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9, para. 3, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to claim 1, 13, 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The USC 112 rejection of 10/2/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 10, para. 2, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 13, 19 under USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hruska fig. 12.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 13, 15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hruska (US 20160213236 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hruska teaches An optical system for implementation in an endoscope comprising:
a most proximal lens being a simple lens or a compound lens with its component lenses attached to each other (fig. 11, element 412, [0045], exemplary lenses 412) with an optical axis, a proximal portion and a distal portion aligned parallel to the optical axis;
an image sensor (fig. 11, element 230, [0034], image sensor 230) with an active surface containing an array of light sensitive pixels ([0030], imaging surface of image sensor); and
a reflective prism (fig. 11-13, element 220, [0039], prism 220);
wherein the image sensor is placed orthogonal to the optical axis (fig. 11, [0040], rotation of the camera 90 degrees), with the active surface facing the reflective prism, wherein the proximal portion of the most proximal lens is smaller than the distal portion of the most proximal lens (fig. 11, element 412, lens is convex with a flat distal face, hence the proximal tip comes to a rounded tip which has a smaller cross sectional area than the flat face), wherein the proximal portion of the most proximal lens overlaps along a length of the image sensor parallel to the optical axis (fig. 11, element 412, lens 412 has overlap with the length of the camera), wherein the distal portion of the most proximal lens overlaps with a height of the image sensor perpendicularly to the optical axis (fig. 11, element 412, lens 412 overlaps with the height of the camera), and wherein the image sensor can be positioned at a focal position of the optical system.
Regarding claim 2, Hruska teaches The optical system of claim 1,
wherein the most proximal lens is a simple lens ([0045], exemplary lens 412).
Regarding claim 3, Hruska teaches The optical system of claim 1,
wherein the most proximal lens comprises a compound lens (fig. 11-13, element 412, 414, series of lenses comprises a compound lens attached to each other).
Regarding claim 4, Hruska teaches The optical system of claim 1,
wherein a distal surface of the most proximal lens is convex (fig. 11-13, element 414, convex lens in the distal surface of lens 414 that comprises a compound lens of two attached lenses) and a proximal surface of the most proximal lens has a concave or flat outer surface (fig. 11, element 412, flat proximal face of proximal lens 412, which comprises a compound lens of two attached lenses).
Regarding claim 7, Hruska teaches The optical system of claim 1,
wherein the reflective prism is a triangular prism reflector (fig. 11, element 220, right-angle prism 220 is triangular).
Regarding claim 13, Hruska teaches An endoscope comprising:
a handle (fig. 1, element 42, [0032], handle portion 42),
a shaft (fig. 2, element 44, [0032], insertable portion 44) with a distal head; and
an optical system contained within the distal head,
wherein the optical system comprises:
a most proximal lens being a simple lens or a compound lens with its component lenses attached to each other (fig. 11, element 412, [0045], exemplary lenses 412) with an optical axis, a proximal portion, and a distal portion aligned parallel to the optical axis;
an image sensor (fig. 11, element 230, [0034], image sensor 230) with an active surface containing an array of light sensitive pixels; and
a reflective prism (fig. 11-13, element 220, [0039], prism 220);
wherein the image sensor is positioned orthogonal to the optical axis (fig. 11, [0040], rotation of the camera 90 degrees), with the active surface facing the reflective prism, wherein the proximal portion of the most proximal lens is smaller than the distal portion of the most proximal lens (fig. 11, element 412, lens is convex with a flat distal face, hence the proximal tip comes to a rounded tip which has a smaller cross sectional area than the flat face), wherein the proximal portion of the most proximal lens overlaps along a length of the image sensor parallel to the optical axis (fig. 11, element 412, lens 412 has overlap with the length of the camera), wherein the distal portion of the most proximal lens overlaps with a height of the image sensor perpendicular to the optical axis (fig. 11, element 412, lens 412 overlaps with the height of the camera), and wherein the image sensor can be positioned at a focal position of the optical system.
Regarding claim 14, Hruska teaches The endoscope of claim 13,
wherein the most proximal lens of the optical system is a simple lens ([0045], exemplary lens 412).
Regarding claim 15, Hruska teaches The endoscope of claim 13,
wherein the most proximal lens of the optical system is a compound lens (fig. 11-13, element 412, 414, series of lenses comprises a compound lens attached to each other).
Regarding claim 18, Hruska teaches The endoscope of claim 13,
further comprising an image processor ([0056], image processing logic may be present in electrical components).
Regarding claim 19, Hruska teaches An endoscopic system comprising:
an endoscope; and
an image processor ([0056], image processing logic may be present in electrical components);
wherein the endoscope comprises:
a handle (fig. 1, element 42, [0032], handle portion 42),
a shaft (fig. 2, element 44, [0032], insertable portion 44) with a distal head; and
an optical system contained within the distal head,
wherein the optical system comprises:
a most proximal lens being a simple lens or a compound lens with its component lenses attached to each other (fig. 11, element 412, [0045], exemplary lenses 412) with an optical axis, a proximal portion, and a distal portion aligned parallel to the optical axis;
an image sensor (fig. 11, element 230, [0034], image sensor 230) with an active surface containing an array of light sensitive pixels; and
a reflective prism (fig. 11-13, element 220, [0039], prism 220);
wherein the image sensor is positioned orthogonal to the optical axis (fig. 11, [0040], rotation of the camera 90 degrees), with the active surface facing the reflective prism, wherein the proximal portion of the most proximal lens is smaller than the distal portion of the most proximal lens (fig. 11, element 412, lens is convex with a flat distal face, hence the proximal tip comes to a rounded tip which has a smaller cross sectional area than the flat face), wherein the proximal portion of the most proximal lens overlaps along a length of the image sensor parallel to the optical axis (fig. 11, element 412, lens 412 has overlap with the length of the camera), wherein the distal portion of the most proximal lens overlaps with a height of the image sensor perpendicular to the optical axis (fig. 11, element 412, lens 412 overlaps with the height of the camera), and wherein the image sensor can be positioned at a focal position of the optical system.
Regarding claim 20, Hruska teaches The endoscopic system of claim 18
further comprising an illumination source ([0007], camera includes a light source).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 9-12, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hruska as applied to claims 1/13 above, and further in view of Ducket (EP 4012479 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hruska teaches The optical system of claim 1,
Hruska does not explicitly teach the device wherein the proximal portion of the most proximal lens and the distal portion of the most proximal lens have different, parallel optical axes.
However, Ducket teaches the device wherein the proximal portion (fig. 2, element 115) of the most proximal lens and the distal portion of the most proximal lens (fig. 2, element 113) have different, parallel optical axes (fig. 2, optical axis of lenses 113 and 115 are parallel but different).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lens of Hruska to have different optical axes as taught in Ducket in order to utilize a beam splitter to separate light (Ducket [0019]).
Regarding claim 9, Hruska teaches The optical system of claim 1,
Hruska does not explicitly teach wherein a proximal surface of the most proximal lens is concave.
However, Ducket teaches wherein a proximal surface of the most proximal lens is concave (fig. 2, element 115).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lens of Hruska to be concave as taught in Ducket in order to properly align the optical pathways (Ducket [0023]).
Regarding claim 10, Hruska teaches The optical system of claim 1,
Hruska does not explicitly teach wherein the image sensor comprises a cover glass positioned between the active surface and the reflective prism.
However, Ducket teaches wherein the image sensor comprises a cover glass positioned between the active surface and the reflective prism (fig. 2, element 213, 215, [0025], cover glass or protective layer 213/215).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the image sensor of Hruska to have a cover glass as taught in Ducket in order to protect the image sensor (Ducket [0025]).
Regarding claim 11, Hruska in view of Ducket teaches The optical system of claim 10,
Ducket further teaches wherein the reflective prism is adhered directly to the cover glass (fig. 2, element 213/215, direct contact between image sensors 214/216 and cover glass 213/215 is shown).
Regarding claim 12, Hruska teaches The optical system of claim 1,
Hruska does not explicitly teach the device wherein the position of the image sensor may be adjusted along an axis parallel to the optical axis.
However, Ducket teaches the device wherein the position of the image sensor may be adjusted along an axis parallel to the optical axis (fig. 5, element 510, [0046], adjustment of focal depth at block 510 is preferably accomplished by offsetting the focal plane of one sensor).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the image sensor of Hruska to be adjustable as taught in Ducket in order to control the focal depth of the device (Ducket [0046])
Regarding claim 16, Hruska teaches The endoscope of claim 13,
Hruska does not explicitly teach the device wherein the proximal portion of the most proximal lens and the distal portion of the most proximal lens have different, parallel optical axes.
However, Ducket teaches the device wherein the proximal portion (fig. 2, element 115) of the most proximal lens and the distal portion of the most proximal lens (fig. 2, element 113) have different, parallel optical axes (fig. 2, optical axis of lenses 113 and 115 are parallel but different).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lens of Hruska to have different optical axes as taught in Ducket in order to utilize a beam splitter to separate light (Ducket [0019]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hruska as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Ducket (EP 4012479 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Hruska teaches The optical system of claim 1,
Hruska does not explicitly teach wherein the diameter of the distal portion of the most proximal lens is between 1 mm and 10 mm.
However, Yoshida teaches wherein the diameter of the distal portion of the most proximal lens is between 1 mm and 10 mm ([0041], distal end portion of the endoscope has a small diameter equal or smaller than 8mm, optical system 20 fits in the distal end, hence must be less than 8mm. Fig. 2A shows the optical system 20 being greater than 1/8th the cross sectional area of the distal end, hence the optical system must have a diameter of at least 1mm).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distal end of Hruska to be 8mm as taught in Yoshida in order to reduce the invasiveness of endoscopic procedures (Yoshida [0005]).
Claim(s) 6, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hruska as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Hegenbarth (US 20180143421 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hruska teaches The optical system of claim 1,
Hruska does not explicitly teach the device wherein the proximal portion of the most proximal lens comprises a recess, notch, or cut-out, the recess notch or cut-out resulting in a longitudinal cross-sectional area of the proximal portion of the most proximal lens being reduced compared to a longitudinal cross-sectional area of the distal portion of the most proximal lens.
However, Hegenbarth teaches teaches the device wherein the proximal portion of the most proximal lens comprises a recess, notch, or cut-out (fig. 3, element 7, [0038], recess 7), the recess notch or cut-out resulting in a longitudinal cross-sectional area of the proximal portion of the most proximal lens being reduced compared to a longitudinal cross-sectional area of the distal portion of the most proximal lens (fig. 1a/b, negative lens has a lower cross sectional area in the proximal portion due to having space instead of material).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lens of Hruska to contain a negative space as taught in Hegenbarth in order to achieve a desired refractive index for the optical system (Hegenbarth [0012]).
Regarding claim 17, Hruska teaches The endoscope of claim 13,
Hruska does not explicitly teach the device wherein the proximal portion of the most proximal lens comprises a recess, notch, or cut-out, the recess notch or cut-out resulting in a longitudinal cross-sectional area of the proximal portion of the most proximal lens being reduced compared to a longitudinal cross-sectional area of the distal portion of the most proximal lens.
However, Hegenbarth teaches the device wherein the proximal portion of the most proximal lens comprises a recess, notch, or cut-out (fig. 3, element 7, [0038], recess 7), the recess notch or cut-out resulting in a longitudinal cross-sectional area of the proximal portion of the most proximal lens being reduced compared to a longitudinal cross-sectional area of the distal portion of the most proximal lens (fig. 1a/b, negative lens has a lower cross sectional area in the proximal portion due to having space instead of material).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lens of Hruska to contain a negative space as taught in Hegenbarth in order to achieve a desired refractive index for the optical system (Hegenbarth [0012]).
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 TIMOTHY TUAN LUU whose telephone number is (703)756-4592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Friday.
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 5712707235. 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.
/TIMOTHY TUAN LUU/ Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights