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 .
Cited Prior Art
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”. (See MPEP 2141.02(VI)) Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all relevant portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I) in the reply filed on 1/19/2026 is acknowledged. This response is deemed incomplete as it does not address the election of species starting at para 6. An interview was conducted with the attorney, Tony Orsi (3/12/2026) to request an election of species for a complete and full E/R response. Applicant elected species embodiment b) reading on claims 13-19 in an interview. Nonelected claims 1-12 were withdrawn without traverse.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the system as a whole and how the parts depicted in the current drawings come together as described in the specification. For example, fig 2 as a grey scale picture of the system with poor image quality does not suffice in showing the details in the claims or described in the specification. Additionally, figs 3 and 13A-D fail to show the details and how the components come together for at least the same reasons. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112a
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 19 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.
Claim 19 requires combining lateral and rotational movement image data for loop formation determination. It is unclear where in the specification this is described. The closest description appears to be at 00207, which describes using rotation information for the detection of loops without the use of lateral movement data and cites reference [29] Bruce and Choi. This reference appears to use embedded bending sensors to detect rotation and not from consecutive images/video which is considered to be different than the claimed manner. Therefore, claim 19 is considered lacking written description. It will be interpreted as using any manner for loop formation determination.
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.
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki US20120078045 and further in view of Lim US20250009382 and Miura US20160292498.
Sasaki discloses for claim 13, “A real-time endoscope tracker system comprising:
a holder having a casing (mouthpiece 81; fig 9; 0085) with a hole in a center of the casing (hole 83; fig 9) for receiving an endoscope that has an insertion tube;
a processor (control apparatus 13; fig 8, 9; 0086) in communication with a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to track in real time a position (0086 determining the insertion length) of a distal end of the endoscope.
Sasaki does not disclose:
a holder having a casing (mouthpiece 81; fig 9; 0085) with “spaced apart distal ends”. Lim teaches in the same field of endeavor, a tracking frame (fixture 500; fig 5; 0025) for an insertable medical instrument, wherein the frame has three spaced apart distal arms (fig 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Lim into the invention of Sasaki in order to configure the system e.g. as claimed because it allows application onto the surface of body instead on requiring an invasive insertion of the fixture into a body cavity (0026).
Modified Sasaki does not disclose:
“at least two cameras, each of the cameras being mounted at one of the distal ends such that each of the cameras points towards the center of the casing and each of the cameras having an uninterrupted view of the endoscope when received in the hole in the center of the casing”. Miura teaches in the same field of endeavor an endoscope position and orientation tracking system (fig 1, 2) using multiple cameras (cameras 46, 48; fig 2; 0045-0047) oriented to the central axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Miura into the invention of Sasaki in order to configure the system e.g. as claimed, specifically by replacing the distally configured marking reading unit 87 (fig 9) of Sasaki with distally configured multiple cameras of Miura onto each of the three spaced apart distal arms of the fixture (Lim: fig 5) because it allows tracking of the orientation in the form of rotation of the endoscope (Miura: fig 11; 0110).
Modified Sasaki discloses “cause the processor to track in real time a position (0086 determining the insertion length) and orientation (Miura: 0110 determines the insertion amount and rotation) of a distal end of the endoscope based on images obtained of a portion of the endoscope that is in a Field Of View (FOV) of the at least two cameras (Miura: 0107), the processor when executing program instructions, being configured to:
obtain real-time images from the at least two cameras of the portion of the endoscope in the FOV of the at least two cameras (Miura: 0110 uses the images from cameras to determine position and orientation);
measuring lateral and rotational movements of the endoscope based on markings (Miura: scale markings 40; fig 11) printed on the endoscope and captured in the real-time images; and
correlating the real-time images from the at least two cameras to calculate changes in the measured lateral and rotational movements in order to determine the position and orientation of the distal end of the endoscope (Miura: 0110)”.
Modified Sasaki discloses for claim 14, “The system of claim 13, wherein the at least two cameras cover a full 360-degree view of an insertion tube of the endoscope around a lateral axis of the insertion tube for measuring the lateral and rotational movements of the endoscope (Lim: modified cameras located at the distal arms of the fixture 500, fig 5, provides a 360 degree view)”.
Modified Sasaki discloses for claim 15, “The system of claim 13, wherein the at least two cameras comprise three cameras, where each of the three cameras is fixed at a point so that two consecutive cameras are located 120° to an axis of the insertion tube to provide an uninterrupted view of the insertion tube and markings thereon (Lim: modified cameras located at the distal arms of the fixture 500, fig 5, provides a 360 degree view)”.
Modified Sasaki discloses for claim 16, “The system of claim 13, wherein the at least two cameras are configured to capture video of the endoscope as the endoscope moves relative to fixed FOVs of the at least two cameras (Miura: 0060 describes taking sequential images considered to be video images)”.
Modified Sasaki discloses for claim 17, “The system of claim 13, wherein the processor, when executing the program instructions, is further configured to identify white line markings along a length of the insertion tube to correct for cumulative errors that build up in measurements (Miura: 0070 describes counting scale marks 40, e.g. black dots which requires a corresponding contrast of white markings or gaps – the markings 40 can be considered the gaps or the markings themselves as long a contrast is created which is what allows the counting)”.
Modified Sasaki discloses for claim 18, “The system of claim 15, wherein the processor, when executing the program instructions, is further configured to identify a black gap at a point in a circumference of the insertion tube to correct for errors in rotation (Miura: 0070 describes counting scale marks 40, e.g. black dots which requires a corresponding contrast of white markings or gaps – the markings 40 can be considered the gaps or the markings themselves as long a contrast is created which is what allows the counting).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki, Lim, and Miura as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ikeda US20200000316.
Sasaki does not disclose for claim 19, “The system of claim 13, wherein the processor, when executing the program instructions, is configured to combine data on lateral and rotational movements with live video from a camera on a tip of the endoscope to determine if a loop is being formed by the insertion tube”.
Ikeda teaches in the same field of endeavor determining loop formation in an endoscope using rotational information (fig 3a, 3b; 0058). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Ikeda into the invention of Sasaki in order to configure the system e.g. as claimed because it allows for detection of potentially dangerous loops in the endoscope.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE K WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-0837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-2:30p, 6p-9p.
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.
/Jae Woo/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795 3/25/26