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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on May 24, 2024. Claims 21-40 are pending, of which claims 21-40 have been added and claims 1-20 have been canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on January 30, 2024 and January 26, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 11,887,502 in view of art of record in the attached notice of references cited and indicated below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the optical train having four lenses and an infrared filter. must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 § CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 35 includes the language “the connector bends under the flat portion of the lens mount and around the bevel of the lens mount.” The term “under” is unclear within the context of the claim. The claim includes no orientation from which to determine where “under” is relative to any other part of the camera scope. Moreover, there does not appear to be any bend of the connector with regard to the flat portion of the lens mount shown or described in the specification and drawings. It is believed this wording is an attempt to describe the path of the connector with regard to elements of the assembly as shown in Fig. 18. For purpose of examination this term is construed to mean the connector bends around a permitter of the lens mount including the bevel and flat portion of the lens mount. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 21-29 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In re claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “the shape of the image sensor” at line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 34, the claim recites the limitation “the lens assembly” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 22-29 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons provided for the base claim.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,379,756 to Pileski et al. (“Pileski”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,756 to Chikama (“Chikama”).
In claim 21, Pileski discloses a simulation surgical camera scope [Fig. 1 scope #10 is suitable for demonstration or simulation purpose, e.g., as lens (e.g., 30) can be replaced with different lens for demonstration or if damaged from practice without having to replace the entire scope apparatus #10] comprising: a handle [Fig. 1, shows handle #13]; a cylindrical elongate shaft having a proximal end coupled to the handle and a distal end with a longitudinal axis and a lumen extending between the proximal end of the cylindrical elongate shaft to the distal end of the cylindrical elongate shaft [Fig. 1, shows tube # 11, e.g., which is hollow with center axis length of the tube], a distal portion of the cylindrical elongate shaft comprising a sensor mount and a lens mount, the lens mount and the sensor mount both being partially cylindrical and sized to fit within the lumen of the cylindrical elongate shaft [Figs. 2-5, shows sensor mount #22 and lens mount #20 at distal end, both of which are cylindrical and sized to fit in tube 11], the lens mount includes a proximal end [Fig. 5, #20 end closest to handle, i.e., right side of Fig. 5], a distal end [Fig. 5, #20 end closest to tip, i.e., left side of Fig. 5] interconnected by a sidewall, and a central lumen extending between a first opening at the proximal end of the lens mount to a second opening at the distal end of the lens mount [Fig. 5, #20 a side wall is shown with left/right cross hatching that extends between distal and proximal ends to define a central lumen between the openings defined by the ends], the proximal end of the lens mount including a recess, the recess being a planar depression in the proximal end of the lens mount [Fig. 5, the area of 20 that would be occupied by 22 is a recess that is planar]; a lens disposed within the central lumen of the lens mount [Figs. 2 and 4, #30]; and an image sensor disposed within the recess of the lens mount and positioned between the lens mount and the sensor mount with the proximal end of the lens mount being adjacent to a distal end of the sensor mount [Figs. 2, 5 show an image sensor 21 is disposed within receptacle 22 (sensor mount). Receptacle 22 is located in a recess at proximal end of canister 20 (lens mount). The imager 21 is disposed between both receptacle 22 and the canister 22 in the recess], the image sensor having a distal face facing the distal end of the elongate shaft with the recess being in the shape of the image sensor [Imager 21 is a plate 23 shaped to fit withing the canister 20 (i.e., circular].
Pileski lacks but Chikama teaches wherein the sensor mount has a pin hole extending in a direction traverse to the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical elongate shaft and arranged to receive a pin connecting the sensor mount to the cylindrical elongate shaft to prevent longitudinal translation of the sensor mount and rotation of the sensor mount around the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical elongate shaft [Fig. 15 shows sensor mount 361 including pin hole 380 for pin 381 to the pin 381 is brought into contact with the wall of the spiral groove 382 and thus the first and second tubes 361 and 362 are supported in the engagement position in a stable manner.].
Pileski and Chikama both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical endoscopes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Pileski to include the pin, as taught by Chikama, in order to fix the image sensor in a stable manner at a desired location within the tube.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pileski in view of Chikama and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,435,218 to Krattiger et al. (“Krattiger”).
In claim 22, Pileski discloses the sensor mount and lens mount arranged on an optical axis that is in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical elongate shaft. Pileski lacks, but Krattiger teaches the sensor mount further comprises a second pin hole extending in a direction parallel to the optical axis of the scope and wherein the lens mount comprises a pin hole and the second pin hole of the sensor mount is aligned with the pin hole of the lens mount [Figs. 2b, shows pin holes 56 and 58 for position pins in 52 and 54 in the sensor mount. Fig. 6b shows holes for the pins 52, 54 in lens mount. The holes are parallel to longitudinal the optical axis of the end of the scope].
Pileski and Krattiger both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical endoscopes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Pileski to include the pin, as taught by Krattiger, in order to improve imaging, for example, by ensuring an exact image alignment and image sharpness by precisely position the lens with to the image sensor, see, e.g., col. 11, ll. 50-55.
In claim 23, Pileski lacks, but Krattiger teaches the pin holes of the sensor mount and lens mount of have different diameter sizes [Fig. 6a and 6b shows holes with 56 and 58 have different size than that of end 26].
Pileski and Krattiger both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical endoscopes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Pileski to include the pins with holes of different diameters, as taught by Krattiger, in order to improve imaging, for example, by ensuring an exact image alignment and image sharpness by precisely position the lens with to the image sensor, see, e.g., col. 11, ll. 50-55.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pileski in view of Chikama and Krattiger and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2005/0089286 by Hatori (“Hatori”).
In claim 24, Pileski in view of Chikama and Krattiger teach the pin hole of the sensor mount extends through the sensor mount. However, the combination does not teach the pin hole has a tapered entryway. However, Hatori teaches an endoscope with pin hole that has a tapered entryway [Fig. 5B and ¶¶72-74].
Pileski, Chikama, Krattiger, and Hatori are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical endoscopes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Pileski in view of Chikama and Krattiger to include a pin hole with taper entryway, as taught by Hatori, in order to improve assembly, for example, by facilitating entry of pin into the hole during seating of the pin.
In claim 25, Pileski discloses the sensor mount has a distal portion with a flat surface, the image sensor and a connector being positioned on the flat surface of the sensor mount [Fig. 2 shows flat surface on receptacle 22 on which image plate 23 rest with connector (not numbered) also is flat and connects to pins 24 which attach to conductors 25 which connect to connector module 15 circuitry in the handle].
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pileski in view of Chikama, Krattiger, and Hatori and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0043496 by Azuma (“Azuma”).
In claim 26, Pileski discloses the lens is positioned inside a lens housing threadably positioned within the central lumen of the lens mount the lens comprising an optical train having three [Fig. 2 shows lens cell 30 having threads which screw into cannister 20. Fig. 4 shows optical train of three lens].
Pileski lacks but Azuma teaches the lens comprising an optical train having four lenses and an infrared filter [¶¶53,61,67, among others, describe optical train with 4 lens and infrared filter].
Pileski and Azuma are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of imagining systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Pileski to modify the number of lens of the optical train of the lens assembly, as taught by Azuma, in order to enhance image capture, for example, to accurately capture detail on the image sensor, see, e.g., ¶53.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as unpatentable over Pileski in view of Chikama, Krattiger, and Hatori, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0007833 by Huang (“Huang”).
In claim 27, Pileski teaches a scope with handle to provide an image of an observation object obtained by the image sensor through the objective optical system including a connector. Pileski does not explicitly teach that a controller is located in the handle of the scope but rather describes transmitting the image to an external processor through the signal lines for display. Huang also teaches a scope with an image sensor and lens to provide an image of an object wherein a controller printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) located inside an interior defined by the handle and the lumen of the cylindrical elongated shaft opens to the interior of the handle, the connector proximally extending through the lumen of the cylindrical elongated shaft into the interior of the handle and connecting to the controller PCBA [Abstract, Figs. 12-14, ¶¶40-42 describes handle 112 defines and inner chamber for circuit board 180 with processor 160 for processing images from camera 140 located in distal end of scope].
All of the component parts are known in Pileski and Huang. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device by placing the processor in the handle instead of housing externally. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to mount the processor taught by reference Huang into the handle of Pileski, since the operation of the lens and image sensor of the scope is in no way dependent on the location of the processor, and the combination achieves the predictable results of image processing for surgical observation.
In claim 28, Pileski lacks, but Huang teaches the controller PCBA includes a microcontroller configured to process data acquired by the image sensor which is displayed on a monitor [Abstract, Figs. 12-14, ¶¶40-42].
All of the component parts are known in Pileski and Huang. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device by placing the processor in the handle instead of housing externally. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to mount the processor taught by reference Huang into the handle of Pileski, since the operation of the lens and image sensor of the scope is in no way dependent on the location of the processor, and the combination achieves the predictable results of image processing for surgical observation.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as unpatentable over Pileski in view of Chikama, Krattiger, Hatori, and further in view of US Patent No. 7,976,459 to Laser (“Laser”).
In claim 29, Pileski discloses an image sensor with a fiber optic light source. Pileski lacks, but Laser teaches a scope with at least one light emitting diode and wherein the image sensor and the at least one light emitting diode are mounted on the connector [Fig. 2 shows flexible circuit board 13/17 with LED 14 and image sensor 15 mounted thereon].
Pileski and Laser are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical endoscopes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Pileski to replace the fiber lighting with the LED lighting arrangement, as taught by Laser, to substantially reduce weight and cost of the scope (See, e.g., Laser col. 1 l. 64-col. 2 l. 37).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as unpatentable over US Publication No. 2016/0000301 to Langell et al. (“Langell”) in view of Laser.
In claim 30, Langell discloses a simulation surgical camera scope [Abstract, Figs. 1-5 scope #110 is suitable for demonstration or simulation purpose, e.g., as its portable, light weight, can different borescope tubes attached, and the tip/borescope may be disposable] comprising: a handle defining an interior [Fig. 4, #200]; a elongate shaft having a proximal end, a distal end and a longitudinal axis, the proximal end of the elongate shaft connected to the handle with the longitudinal axis extending between the distal end of the elongate shaft to the proximal end of the elongate shaft, the elongated shaft including a sidewall having a cylindrical shape defining a lumen extending from the distal end of the elongate shaft to the proximal end of the elongate shaft including a proximal opening in which the lumen of the elongate shaft opens to the interior of the handle [Figs. 4a and 4b show interchangeable tube portion 400 of scope having elongate shaft with lumen extending between distal end housing lens and sensor]; a lens located within a lens housing located within a lens mount, the lens, lens housing, and the lens mount located within the lumen of the elongate shaft [Figs 6a and 6B show lens 530 in lens housing 611 with mount 614 that fit within distal end of elongate shaft]; a cover at the distal end of the elongate shaft [Figs 6a and 6B show cover 635], the lens located between the cover and the lens mount [Figs. 6B show lens 630 between cover 635 and mount 614]; an image sensor located within a proximal portion of the lens mount [Fig. 6B shows sensor 620 on board 640 within proximal portion of mount 614]; and at least one light emitting diode (LED) [Figs. 6a and 6b show light emitting diode 610].
Langell does not expressly teach that the LED is located between the cover and the lens mount. However, Laser teaches a lens located within a lens mount 11 with a cover 23, an image sensor 15; and at least one light emitting diode (LED) 14 located between the cover and the lens mount, see, e.g., Fig. 2.
Langell and Laser are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical endoscopes including LED lighting at their distal ends. Because both Langell and Laser teach surgical endoscopes with LED lighting, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute on positioning of the LED in Langell (e.g., next to cover) with an alternate position of Laser (e.g., between cover and lens) to achieve the predictable result of providing illumination for image capture in a surgical scope.
Claims 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as unpatentable over Langell in view of Laser and further in view of Huang.
In claim 31, Langell in view of Laser lacks, but Huang discloses a controller printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) located inside the interior of the handle and a connector connected to the image sensor and the controller PCBA and a cable connected to the controller PCBA extends proximally from within the interior of the handle to outside the handle [Abstract, Figs. 12-14, ¶¶40-42 describes handle 112 defines and inner chamber for circuit board 180 with processor 160 for processing images from camera 140 located in distal end of scope].
All of the component parts are known in Langell and Huang. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device by placing the processor in the handle instead of housing externally. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to mount the processor taught by reference Huang into the handle of Langell, since the operation of the lens and image sensor of the scope is in no way dependent on the location of the processor, and the combination achieves the predictable results of image processing for surgical observation.
In claim 32, Langell lacks, but Laser teaches the lens mount is partially cylindrical and sized to fit within the lumen of the elongate shaft, the lens mount includes a proximal end and a distal end interconnected by a sidewall, the sidewall including a flat portion transitioning to a bevel at an intersection of the flat portion with the distal end of the lens mount [Fig. 2 (reproduced below) of head assembly shows lens mount 11 with proximal end (near sensor 15) and distal end (near cover 23) with side wall (where lead line of 11 touches) where the side is flat along with a bevel at the distal end].
PNG
media_image1.png
473
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Langell and Laser are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical endoscopes that include lens assemblies for imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Langell to substitute one type of lens assembly configuration (e.g., that of Langell) with another type having a flat wall and bevel (e.g., as taught by Laser) for the predictable result of obtaining an image of a patient with the user of the scope.
In claim 33, Langell lacks, but Laser teaches the connector comprises a flexboard comprising a sensor location and a proximal end of the image sensor is attached to the sensor location of the flexboard, the sensor location being planar and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the elongated shaft [Fig. 2, Flexible circuit board 17 for mounting sensor 15].
Langell and Laser are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical endoscopes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Langell to include the flexible circuit board 17, as taught by Laser, to improve use of the scope, e.g., reduce weight and cost of the scope and aid in assemble of components in the small spaces of the tube (See, e.g., Laser col. 1 l. 64-col. 2 l. 37).
In claim 34, Langell discloses a ring of LEDs arrayed around the lens assembly [Fig. 7 shows three circumferential LEDs 610 around lens assembly 611, ¶86].
In claim 35, Langell lacks, but Laser teaches the connector bends under the flat portion of the lens mount and around the bevel of the lens mount [Fig. 2 shows extension 13 of flexible board 17 under and around lens 11].
Langell and Laser are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical endoscopes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Langell to include the flexible circuit board 17, as taught by Laser, to improve use of the scope, e.g., reduce weight and cost of the scope and aid in assemble of components in the small spaces of the tube (See, e.g., Laser col. 1 l. 64-col. 2 l. 37).
In claim 36, Langell discloses a simulation surgical camera scope [Abstract, Figs. 1-5 scope #110 is suitable for demonstration or simulation purpose, e.g., as its portable, light weight, can different borescope tubes attached, and the tip/borescope may be disposable] comprising: a handle defining an interior [Fig. 4, #200]; a elongate shaft having a proximal end, a distal end and a longitudinal axis, the proximal end of the elongate shaft connected to the handle with the longitudinal axis extending between the distal end of the elongate shaft to the proximal end of the elongate shaft, the elongated shaft including a sidewall having a cylindrical shape defining a lumen extending from the distal end of the elongate shaft to the proximal end of the elongate shaft including a proximal opening in which the lumen of the elongate shaft opens to the interior of the handle [Figs. 4a and 4b show interchangeable tube portion 400 of scope having elongate shaft with lumen extending between distal end housing lens and sensor]; a lens assembly located within the lumen of the elongate shaft at the distal end of the elongate shaft, the lens assembly comprising a lens, a lens housing, a lens mount and a cover [Figs 6a and 6B show lens 530 in lens housing 611 with mount 614 and cover 635 that fit within distal end of elongate shaft]; a sensor assembly located with the lumen of the elongate shaft, the sensor assembly comprising an image sensor [Fig. 6B shows sensor 620 on board 640 within proximal portion of mount 614] and at least one light emitting diode (LED); and at least one LED [Figs. 6a and 6b show light emitting diode 610]
Langell lacks, but Huang teaches a controller printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) located inside the interior of the handle and a connector connected to the image sensor and the controller PCBA and a cable connected to the controller PCBA extends proximally from within the interior of the handle to outside the handle [Abstract, Figs. 12-14, ¶¶40-42 describes handle 112 defines and inner chamber for circuit board 180 with processor 160 for processing images from camera 140 located in distal end of scope].
All of the component parts are known in Langell and Huang. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device by placing the processor in the handle instead of housing externally. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to mount the processor taught by reference Huang into the handle of Langell, since the operation of the lens and image sensor of the scope is in no way dependent on the location of the processor, and the combination achieves the predictable results of image processing for surgical observation.
Langell in view of Huang a flexboard and the flexboard connected to a proximal face of the image sensor at a sensor location between the lens mount and a sensor mount, the flexboard extending through the lumen of the elongate shaft to connect to the controller PCBA located within the interior of the handle.
Laser teaches the lens assembly comprising a lens and housing [Fig. 2 shows lens assembly 11]; a sensor assembly located with the lumen of the elongate shaft, the sensor assembly comprising an image sensor and at least one light emitting diode (LED); and a flexboard connected to the at least one LED, the flexboard connected to a proximal face of the image sensor at a sensor location between the lens mount and a sensor mount [Fig. 2 shows an assembly with image sensor 15 and LED 14 mounted on Flexboard 17 and extension 13], the flexboard extending through the lumen of the elongate shaft to connect to a controller [col. 6, ll. 18-25, col l. 58-col. 7, l. 10 flexible circuit 17 connects through sleeve 3 to controller 5].
Langell, Huang, and Laser are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical endoscopes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Langell in view of Huang to include the flexible circuit board 17, as taught by Laser, to improve use of the scope, e.g., reduce weight and cost of the scope and aid in assemble of components in the small spaces of the tube (See, e.g., Laser col. 1 l. 64-col. 2 l. 37).
In claim 37, Langell lacks, but Laser teaches the lens mount includes a proximal end and a distal end interconnected by a sidewall including a flat portion, the at least one LED located at the distal end of the lens mount and a first portion of the flexboard positioned along the flat portion of the lens mount [Fig. 2 (reproduced above) shows of head assembly shows lens mount 11 with proximal end (near sensor 15) and distal end (near cover 23) with side wall (where lead line of 11 touches) where the side is flat and the LED 14 is located at the distal with the extension 13 of the flexible circuit 17 positioned along the flat wall of the lens assemble 11].
Langell and Laser are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical endoscopes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the endoscope of Langell to include the flexible circuit board 17 with flat surface of lens mount 611, as taught by Laser, to improve use of the scope, e.g., reduce weight and cost of the scope and aid in assemble of components in the small spaces of the tube (See, e.g., Laser col. 1 l. 64-col. 2 l. 37).
Examiner’s Note
With regard to claim 38, the prior art of record does not anticipate or obviate the following recitations “wherein the sensor mount includes a proximal end and a distal end interconnected by a sidewall including a flat portion, the sensor mount having a distal flat surface disposed between a pair of raised surfaces disposed at the distal end of the sensor mount, a second portion of the flexboard positioned along the distal flat surface between the pair of raised surfaces, the second portion of the flexboard extending in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and the first portion of the flexboard” in combination with the rest of the elements in claims 36 and 37. Claims 39 and 40 depend from claim 38 and therefore also include these limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715