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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated November 12, 2025.
Claims 7-14 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The feature “the stress detection sensor is configured to detect fluctuations in output value corresponding to a stress load applied from the cable to the physical quantity detection sensor as the bending section bends” is not supported by the specification. More specifically, the term “fluctuation” is never mentioned in the specification. Even if fluctuations were interpreted as the “output variations” of the physical quantity detection sensor, as described in paragraph [0044] of the present specification, this still would not describe fluctuations in the output value that correspond to a stress load applied from the cable .
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for depending on Claim 7.
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.
Claim 7 is 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. More specifically, it unclear what is being claimed by the feature “the stress detection sensor is configured to detect fluctuations in output value corresponding to a stress load applied from the cable to the physical quantity detection sensor as the bending section bends, and the endoscope corrects the physical quantity detected by the physical quantity detection sensor using a correction value corresponding to the output value of the stress detection sensor”. Not only is unclear what is meant by “fluctuations”, but it is also unclear whether the output value is from the stress detection sensor or the physical quantity detection sensor.
For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets “the stress detection sensor is configured to detect fluctuations in output value corresponding to a stress load applied from the cable to the physical quantity detection sensor as the bending section bends, and the endoscope corrects the physical quantity detected by the physical quantity detection sensor using a correction value corresponding to the output value of the stress detection sensor” as meaning correcting an output of an acceleration sensor and/or a strain/gravity sensor.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on Claim 7.
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.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US PGPUB 2009/0213212 – “Nakamura”) in view of Shah et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0331741 – “Shah”) and Tojo et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0292199 – “Tojo”).
Regarding Claim 7, Nakamura discloses:
An endoscope (Nakamura FIG. 1, endoscope 10) comprising an insertion portion (Nakamura FIG. 1, insertion tube 14) including a distal end portion (Nakamura FIG. 1, distal head assembly 17) and a bending portion (Nakamura FIG. 1, steering portion 18), the distal end portion incorporating an image pickup unit (Nakamura FIG. 3, board 46),wherein the image pickup unit includes an image sensor (Nakamura FIG. 3, image pickup unit 42 on board 46) configured to pick up an object image (Nakamura paragraph [0035], “image pickup unit 42 of FIG. 3 is incorporated in the head assembly 17 for in-vivo imaging”).
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose:
a physical quantity detection sensor configured to detect a physical quantity;
a stress detection sensor;
a cable configured to transmit a signal from the image sensor, the physical quantity detection sensor, and the stress detection sensor; and
a holding member that holds the image sensor, the physical quantity detection sensor, and the stress detection sensor, and is provided with a wiring connection member to which the cable is connected.
Shah teaches:
a physical quantity detection sensor (Shah FIG. 2, accelerometer 48) configured to detect a physical quantity;
a stress detection sensor (Shah FIG. 2, strain gauge(s) 46);
a cable configured to transmit a signal from the image sensor, the physical quantity detection sensor, and the stress detection sensor (Shah FIG. 2, computing equipment; Shah paragraph [0027], “Computing equipment 42 may be a server or other computing equipment that is coupled to device 10…through a wired cable”; and
a holding member (Shah FIG. 1, housing 12) that holds the image sensor (Shah sensors 38; see Shah paragraph [0029], which teaches “cameras…may be used as visual…sensors”), the physical quantity detection sensor, and the stress detection sensor, and is provided with a wiring connection member (Shah FIG. 2, wired communications circuitry 34; see also Shah paragraph [0027]) to which the cable is connected.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shah’s accelerometer and strain gauge(s) with the endoscope disclosed by Nakamura. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope that is capable of detecting movement thereof (see Shah paragraph [0029]).
Nakamura in view of Shah do not explicitly teach:
wherein the cable is inserted into the bending section,
the stress detection sensor is configured to detect fluctuations in output value corresponding to a stress load applied from the cable to the physical quantity detection sensor as the bending section bends, and
the endoscope corrects the physical quantity detected by the physical quantity detection sensor using a correction value corresponding to the output value of the stress detection sensor.
Tojo teaches wherein the cable is inserted into the bending section (Tojo FIG. 8A, showing signal line 151 passing through bendable portion 33 to distal sensor 109), and
the stress detection sensor is configured to detect fluctuations in output value corresponding to a stress load applied from the cable to the physical quantity detection sensor as the bending section bends, and the endoscope corrects the physical quantity detected by the physical quantity detection sensor using a correction value corresponding to the output value of the stress detection sensor (Tojo FIG. 1, correction unit 71; Tojo FIG. 2A, acceleration sensor 103; Tojo FIG. 13A, fiber sensor 200; Tojo paragraph [0069] “the first rotational change quantity detected by the acceleration sensor 103 and corrected by the correction unit 71 includes, for example, not only gravity information including the direction g of gravity acting on area A, but also the acceleration generated by the movement of the insertion apparatus 20 “).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tojo’s sensor correction unit with the endoscope taught by Nakamura in view of Shah. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope whose measured movements of the insertion apparatus caused by insertion, rather than rotational control, are eliminated/compensated for (see Tojo paragraph [0064]).
Regarding Claim 14, Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo teaches the features of Claim 7, as described above.
Shal further teaches wherein the physical quantity detected by the physical quantity detection sensor is one of an acceleration (Shah FIG. 2, accelerometer 48) or an angular acceleration.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US PGPUB 2009/0213212 – “Nakamura”) in view of Shah et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0331741 – “Shah”), Tojo et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0292199 – “Tojo”), and Kallis (US PGPUB 2010/0318141 – “Kallis”).
Regarding Claim 8, Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo teaches the features of Claim 7, as described above.
Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo does not explicitly teach wherein a distal end of the stress detection sensor is provided between the physical quantity detection sensor and the wiring connection member.
Kallis teaches wherein a distal end of the stress detection sensor (Kallis FIG. 3, strain gauge 110) is provided between the physical quantity detection sensor (Kallis FIG. 3, force gauge 100; Kallis paragraph [0030], “Gauges that can be modified to serve the purposes of gauges 100…are commercially available. For example, Endevco Corporation manufactures piezoelectric accelerometers) and the wiring connection member (Kallis FIG. 3, conductor 23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kallis’ positioning of the strain gauge relative to the accelerometer with the endoscope taught by Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an image pickup unit that detects strain on a proximal component (e.g., lead 20 shown in Kallis FIG. 3) in order to avoid damage to the unit.
Regarding Claim 10, Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo teaches the features of Claim 7, as described above.
Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo does not explicitly teach wherein a proximal end of the stress detection sensor is located closer to a proximal end of the physical quantity detection sensor than to a distal end of the physical quantity detection sensor.
Kallis teaches wherein a proximal end of the stress detection sensor (Kallis FIG. 3, strain gauge 110) is located closer to a proximal end of the physical quantity detection sensor (Kallis FIG. 3, force gauge 100; Kallis paragraph [0030], “Gauges that can be modified to serve the purposes of gauges 100…are commercially available. For example, Endevco Corporation manufactures piezoelectric accelerometers”) than a distal end of the physical quantity detection sensor (Kallis FIG. 3, showing proximal end of force gauge 100 closer to strain gauge 110 than the distal end of force gauge 100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kallis’ positioning of the strain gauge relative to the accelerometer with the endoscope taught by Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an image pickup unit that detects strain on a proximal component (e.g., lead 20 shown in Kallis FIG. 3) in order to avoid damage to the unit.
Claim 11 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US PGPUB 2009/0213212 – “Nakamura”) in view of Shah et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0331741 – “Shah”), Tojo et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0292199 – “Tojo”), and O’Neill et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0024590 – “O’Neill”).
Regarding Claim 11, Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo teaches the features of Claim 7, as described above.
Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo do not explicitly teach wherein the stress detection sensor is provided on a same surface of the holding member as one surface on which the physical quantity detection sensor is provided.
O’Neill teaches wherein the stress detection sensor (O’Neill FIG. 7, strain gauges 702) is provided on a same surface of the holding member as one surface (O’Neill FIG. 7, circuit board 704) on which the physical quantity detection sensor (O’Neill FIG. 7, accelerometers/electronic components 708; O’Neill paragraph [0062], “electronic components 708 may include…one or more accelerometers”) is provided.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine O’Neill’s relative positioning of accelerometers and strain gauges with the endoscope taught by Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an image pickup unit having electronic components on a same side of a circuit board, in order to make manufacturing and testing of the circuit board easier.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US PGPUB 2009/0213212 – “Nakamura”) in view of Shah et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0331741 – “Shah”), Tojo et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0292199 – “Tojo”), and Butler et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0135666 – “Butler”).
Regarding Claim 12, Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo teaches the features of Claim 7, as described above.
Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo does not explicitly teach wherein the stress detection sensor is provided on another surface of the holding member, the other surface being opposite to one surface on which the physical quantity detection sensor is provided.
Butler teaches wherein the stress detection sensor(Butler FIG. 12, piezoelectric film 32; Butler paragraph [0035], “Upon each application of compressive force, the accelerometer assembly rotates about the pivot 22, and bends the piezoelectric film 32. Deformation of the piezoelectric film creates a voltage spike within the film, which is detected by appropriate electronics and communicated to the control system”) is provided on another surface of the holding member (Butler FIG. 12, circuit board 18), the other surface being opposite to one surface on which the physical quantity detection sensor (Butler FIG. 12, accelerometer 17) is provided.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Butler’s orientation of an accelerometer and a strain gauge with the endoscope taught by Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an image pickup unit having microelectronic devices on opposite sides of a circuit board, without having to have electronic connectors on both sides of the circuit board, in order to reduce manufacturing costs.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US PGPUB 2009/0213212 – “Nakamura”) in view of Shah et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0331741 – “Shah”), Tojo et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0292199 – “Tojo”), and Okulov (US PGPUB 2021/0318191 – “Okulov”).
Regarding Claim 13, Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo teaches the features of Claim 7, as described above.
Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo does not explicitly teach wherein the wiring connection member is located closer to a proximal end than the distal end of the stress detection sensor.
Okulov teaches wherein the wiring connection member (Okulov FIG. 15, cable connector 35b) is located closer to a proximal end than the distal end of the stress detection sensor (Okulov FIG. 15, proximal end of strain sensor 24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Okulov’s cable connector with the endoscope taught by Nakamura in view of Shah and Tojo. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an image pickup unit having a proximal connector for attachment to a communication/power cable (see Okulov FIG. 15, cable 15a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive, in view of the cancellation of Claims 1-3. The rejection of Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), regarding the meaning of “correction value”, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, a new rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is presented herein with regard to the amended features described above. Thus, the rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the newly-amended features of wherein the cable is inserted into the bending section, the stress detection sensor is configured to detect fluctuations in output value corresponding to a stress load applied from the cable to the physical quantity detection sensor as the bending section bends, and the endoscope corrects the physical quantity detected by the physical quantity detection sensor using a correction value corresponding to the output value of the stress detection sensor found in amended Claim 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record (i.e., Tojo et al., US PGPUB 2018/0292199 – “Tojo”) for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner’s reasoning for the new rejections under Tojo are presented above in the rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base Claim 7, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the rejection of Claim 7 under U.S.C. 112a/b presented above are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No combination of the identified prior art teaches or suggests wherein the distal end of the stress detection sensor is located closer to a distal end of the physical quantity detection sensor than to a proximal end of the physical quantity detection sensor.
The closest identified prior art is Okulov (US PGPUB 2021/0318191 – “Okulov”), which teaches in Okulov FIG. 15 a strain sensor 24 whose distal end is between the distal and proximal ends of accelerometer 21. However, Okulov FIG. 15 does not explicitly teach that the distal end of the strain sensor 24 is closer to the distal end of the accelerometer 21 than the proximal end of the accelerometer 21.
Furthermore, there is no reason or suggestion provided in the prior art to modify the above prior art to teach the limitations as claimed above, and the only reason to modify the references would be based on Applicant's disclosure, which is impermissible hindsight reasoning.
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 JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
01/26/2026