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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In particular, regarding applicant's argument that Tesar does not teach “lens barrels” does not mean that Tesar does not teach the orientation "reverse but parallel orientation" for the eyepieces as claimed, as the first and second lens barrels are taught by both Sorimoto and Ono in claim 1. To reflect this, the 103 was polished to show that the lens barrels are already taught by the previous two references. Regarding applicant’s argument that Tesar does not teach the opposite and reverse but parallel orientation, examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 10B of Tesar shows an opposing but reversed and parallel orientation for the two eyepieces, 11010a and 11010b are the same system mirrored similarly to what instant Figure 3A shows 260a and 260b as. If a line was drawn vertically down the center of each lens barrel, those lines would be parallel to each other, and the system of 11010b is the system of 11010a but mirrored, meaning that the system is reversed. Since figure 10B of Tesar shows this orientation for the two systems similarly to what the instant application shows in figure 3B, it still meets the limitations of the claim as written. Therefore, this configuration would not render Tesar unfit for its intended purpose. To better reflect this, refer to the annotated Tesar fig. 10b below.
PNG
media_image1.png
295
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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 17 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.
Regarding claim 17, claim states the limitation “wherein the opposing layout is positioned such that when under thermal load, the two stereoscopic channels maintain their relative orientation” in both lines of the claim. This limitation is unclear for several reasons – the first is that it is unclear what is meant by “thermal load” in this claim. Is this anything above absolute 0? Is this defined by a specific range or characteristics? What is a thermal load in the context of the claim? The second reason is due to “relative orientation”, which appears to be relative language (MPEP §2173.05(b)) – by what degree is the orientation considered “relatively” maintained? Is there some degree of movement or expansion that is acceptable and still considered the relative orientation, if so then how much deviation from that would not be considered relative? Due to this limitation and for the reasons provided, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05). For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the structure of claim 1 is met, this limitation will be considered met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-11, 13, 16-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorimoto et. al US 20210169318 (hereinafter “Sorimoto”) of record in view of Ono US 20030020814 (hereinafter “Ono”) of record and Tesar et. al US 20150297311 (hereinafter “Tesar”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Sorimoto teaches an optical system for a surgical camera (Sorimoto fig. 4-8b), the optical system comprising:
two stereoscopic channels (Sorimoto fig. 5a-b - 30 and 31, 21 and 22), each stereoscopic channel comprising:
a first lens barrel (Sorimoto fig. 5a-b - 21, 22) comprising one or more first optics (Sorimoto fig 5a-b - 22), the first lens barrel configured to produce an image having a wide field of view (FOV) (Sorimoto para. 0101); and
a second lens barrel (Sorimoto fig. 5a-b - 30, 31) comprising one or more second optics (Sorimoto fig. 5a-b - 31), the second lens barrel configured to produce an image having a narrow FOV (Sorimoto para. 0101), wherein an optical workload of each stereoscopic channel is split between the first lens barrel and the second lens barrel (Sorimoto fig. 5a-b - optical path split between 31 and 22).
Sorimoto does not specify the optical workload including a total zoom such that the first lens barrel includes a first portion of the total zoom and the second lens barrel includes a second portion of the total zoom.
In the same field of endeavor, Ono teaches the optical workload including a total zoom such that the first lens barrel (Ono fig. 7 – 21a) includes a first portion of the total zoom (Ono fig. 7 – 220a, see also para. 0033) and the second lens barrel (Ono fig. 7 – 21b) includes a second portion of the total zoom (Ono fig. 7 – 220b, see also para. 0033 and annotated Ono fig. 5 below which details the first and second optical systems capturing wide-angle and total zooms, thus splitting the workload for the total zoom between each system – see also Ono para. 0058) for the purpose of capturing parallax images (Ono para. 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical workload including a total zoom of the first lens barrel and the second lens barrel as taught by Ono in the optical system of Sorimoto in order to capture parallax images (Ono para. 0033).
PNG
media_image2.png
430
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sorimoto and Ono do not specify wherein the two stereoscopic channels are disposed in an opposing layout such that the first lens barrel and the second lens barrel of one of the two stereoscopic channels are disposed opposite of and in reverse but parallel orientation relative to the first lens barrel and the second lens barrel of the other one of the two stereoscopic channels, however both Sorimoto and Ono teach the first and second lens barrels (Sorimoto fig. 5a-b – 21, 22 as the first lens barrel and 30, 31 as the second lens barrel; Ono fig. 7 – 21a as the first lens barrel and 21b as the second lens barrel).
In the same field of endeavor, Tesar teaches wherein the two stereoscopic channels (Tesar fig. 10b – 11010a, 11010b) are disposed in an opposing layout such that the first lens barrel (Tesar fig. 10b – 11014 and 11012 of 11010a) and the second lens barrel (Tesar fig. 10b – 11014 and 11012 of 11010b) of one of the two stereoscopic channels are disposed opposite of and in reverse but parallel orientation relative to the first lens barrel and the second lens barrel of the other one of the two stereoscopic channels (Tesar fig. 10b – 11014 and 11012 of 11010a and 11010b are disposed opposite of and in reverse but in parallel orientation relative to the first and second lens barrels, see also the annotated fig. 10b below) for the purpose of reducing the physical size of the optical system while maintaining the length of the optical path (Tesar para. 0200). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have two lens barrels placed opposing each other in order to reduce the physical size of the system while maintaining the length of the optical path (Tesar para. 0200).
PNG
media_image1.png
295
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 1, and Sorimoto further teaches wherein the one or more first optics of each first lens barrel (21, 22) comprise a fixed focal length (Sorimoto para. 0100 – 22 may include a lens, which has a fixed focal length intrinsically).
Regarding claim 3, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 2, and Tesar further teaches wherein the optical system comprises a digital zoom mechanism to magnify the image produced by each first lens barrel (Tesar para. 0144 and 0153 – magnification, zooming, etc. may be used to adjust images displayed).
Regarding claim 4, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 1, and Sorimoto further teaches wherein the one or more second optics of each second lens barrel (30, 31) comprise a fixed focal length (Sorimoto para. 0106 – 31 may include a lens, which has a fixed focal length intrinsically).
Regarding claim 5, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 4, and Sorimoto further teaches wherein the optical system comprises a digital zoom mechanism to magnify the image produced by each second lens barrel (Sorimoto para. 0035 and 0128).
Regarding claim 6, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 1, and Sorimoto further teaches wherein the one or more second optics of each first lens barrel (Sorimoto 21, 22) and each second lens barrel (Sorimoto 30, 31) comprise a respective fixed focal length (Sorimoto para. 0100 and 0106 – 22 and 31 may include a lens, which has a fixed focal length intrinsically).
Regarding claim 7, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 6, and Sorimoto further teaches wherein the optical system comprises a digital zoom mechanism to magnify the image produced by each first and second lens barrel (Sorimoto para. 0035 and 0128).
Regarding claim 8, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 1, and Ono further teaches wherein the one or more first optics of each first lens barrel (21a including 220a) comprise movable optics for providing optical zoom (Ono para. 0033).
Regarding claim 9, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 1, and Sorimoto further teaches wherein the one or more second optics of each second lens barrel comprise movable optics for providing optical zoom (Sorimoto para. 0035 and 0128).
Regarding claim 10, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 1, and Sorimoto further teaches wherein the first lens barrel (21, 22) and the second lens barrel (30, 31) of each stereoscopic channel are disposed in a side-by-side arrangement (Sorimoto fig. 4-5b – 30 and 21 are disposed side-by-side), and wherein each of the first lens barrel (21, 22) and the second lens barrel (30, 31) are disposed along a different optical axis of the optical system (Sorimoto fig. 4-5b – 30 and 21 each have their own optical axis).
Regarding claim 11, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 1, and Sorimoto further teaches wherein the first lens barrel (21, 22) and the second lens barrel (30, 31) of each stereoscopic channel are disposed in a stacked arrangement (Sorimoto fig. 6a-b – 30 and 31 are stacked together and have a common optical axis), and wherein the first lens barrel (21, 22) and the second lens barrel (30, 31) are disposed along a same optical axis of the optical system (Sorimoto fig. 6a-b – 30 and 21 have a common optical axis through element 62).
Regarding claim 13, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 1, and Sorimoto further teaches wherein input light is split between and directed into the first lens barrel (21, 22) and the second lens barrel (30, 31) of each stereoscopic channel via a beam splitter and mirror (Sorimoto fig. 6b – optical system includes beam splitter 62 and mirror 62a, where light from the tooth being imaged would travel along the optical axis and be split at 62).
Regarding claim 16, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 1, and Sorimoto further teaches wherein a majority of light is reflected in to the second lens barrel (30, 31 is the narrow FOV camera), the second lens barrel (30, 31) having a higher magnification than the first lens barrel (Sorimoto para. 0037-0038).
Regarding claim 17, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 1, and they further teach wherein the opposing layout is positioned such that when under thermal load, the two stereoscopic channels maintain their relative orientation (see rejection of claim 1 – the structure as claimed is met, therefore this limitation would also be met).
Regarding claim 20, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 1, and they further teach the opposing layout (Tesar fig. 10b), and the first lens barrel (Ono 21a) and the second lens barrel (Ono 21b) are parallel or colinear with each other (Ono fig. 6).
Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar do not teach wherein the opposing layout is configured such that the first lens barrel of each of the two stereoscopic channels are parallel or colinear with each other and the second lens barrel of each of the two stereoscopic channels are parallel or colinear with each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the first lens barrel of each of the two stereoscopic channels are parallel or colinear with each other and the second lens barrel of each of the two stereoscopic channels are parallel or colinear with each other, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jennings et. al US 20090034071 (hereinafter “Jennings”) of record.
Regarding claim 14, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 1.
Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar do not specify that the input light is split in a ratio of 30:70 between the first and second lens barrels respectively, however Sorimoto does teach using beam splitters in the optical system (Sorimoto fig. 6a-b – 62, see also para. 0085).
In a similar field of endeavor, Jennings teaches a beam splitter that splits input light in a ratio of 30:70 between two light paths (Jennings fig. 2 – 205, see also para. 0038 and 0043) for the purpose of splitting a beam of light into two light beams as desired (Jennings para. 0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a beam splitter with a 30:70 ratio in order to split a beam of light into two light beams as desired (Jennings para. 0038).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Osborne et. al US 20150373279 (hereinafter “Osborne”).
Regarding claim 15, Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar teach the optical system of claim 1.
Sorimoto, Ono, and Tesar do not specify wherein each first lens barrel and each second lens barrel of the two stereoscopic channels has an f-number between about f/8 and about f/2, however Sorimoto does teach the first lens barrel (21, 22) and the second lens barrel (30, 31).
In the same field of endeavor, Duret teaches an f-number between about f/8 and about f/2 (Duret para. 0187-0188) for the purpose of covering multiple fields at different resolutions (Duret para. 0187). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an f-number between about f/8 and about f/2 in order to cover multiple fields at different resolutions (Duret para. 0187).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record does not disclose nor teach "the optical system of claim 13, further comprising a conduit that includes an opening, channel or duct formed through the beam splitter" in combination with all the limitations of claims 1 and 13.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record does not disclose nor teach "the optical system of claim 18, further comprising one of an optical coherence tomography (OCT) fiber optic probe, a laser range-finding probe, an oblique illumination source, or a fixation light disposed within the conduit" in combination with all the limitations of claims 1, 13, and 18.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights