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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 14 December, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
In a telephonic interview with Frank Gao on 5 March, 2026, applicant’s representative indicated the election of Species A, Figs.1-9, completing the restriction requirement response. Claims 8-17 are withdrawn as being drawn to nonelected inventions or species, and claims 1-7 are examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Accordingly, the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) is obtained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claims 1-2 and 5-7, the claims do not provide indentation where new items are provided. Note particularly new indented lines not being started after semicolons in claims 2 and 6-7. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). See MPEP 6.08.01 (m).
In claim 1, the claim reads “characterized in that, comprising” [line 1] where it is clear the applicant instead intended to write “comprising”.
In claim 6, the claim reads “characterized in that, further comprising” [line 1] where it is clear the applicant instead intended to write “further comprising”.
Appropriate correction 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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1 and 4-7, the claims recite the limitations "the distal end of the endoscope" [claim 1 line 2], “the target object to be observed” [claim 1 lines 2-3], “the image side of the objective lens” [claim 1 line 4], “the image side of the relay optical system” [claim 1 line 6], “the image side of the magnifying unit” [claim 1 lines 9-10], “the clear apertures” [claim 1 line 10], “the spot range of the emergent light” [claim 1 line 11],
“the exit angle of light” [claim 4 line 1], “the exit pupil distance” [claim 4 line 2], “the overall optical power” [claim 4 lines 2-3],
“the image side of the first lens” [claim 5 line 4], “the object side of the second lens” [claim 5 line 4], “the image side of the third lens” [claim 5 line 7], “the object side of the fourth lens” [claim 5 line 7], “the image side of the fifth lens” [claim 5 line 10], “the object side of the sixth lens” [claim 5 line 10],
“the first end of the magnifying unit support” [claim 6 line 4], “the proximal end of the insertion tube” [claim 6 lines 4-5], “the first end of the camera unit support” [claim 6 line 6], “the second end of the magnifying unit support” [claim 6 lines 6-7], “the second end of the camera unit support” [claim 6 line 9],
“the second end of the magnifying unit” [claim 7 line 2], “the edge of the bayonet” [claim 7 line 5].
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Therefore, the claims are unclear. For the purposes of prosecution, it will be assumed that these are all newly recited items.
In regards to claim 1, the claim reads “a magnifying unit” [line 5], and “a magnifying unit” [line 6]. It is unclear if these are the same item. Therefore, the claim is unclear. For the purpose of prosecution, it will be assumed these are the same item.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Takahashi (US 5,557,454).
In regards to Claim 1, Takahashi discloses an optical 3D endoscope, characterized in that, comprising:
an objective lens [11, Fig.5, col.4 ll.10-16, col.6 ll.65-67], disposed at the distal end of the endoscope, for collecting the light reflected by the target object to be observed outside the distal end of the endoscope;
a relay optical system [32, Fig.5, col.4 ll.13-17, col.6 ll.58-col.7 ll.8], disposed on the image side of the objective lens, for transmitting the light collected by the objective lens at the distal end of the endoscope to a magnifying unit;
a magnifying unit [33, Fig.5, col.6 ll.67-col.7 ll.8], disposed on the image side of the relay optical system, for transmitting the light collected by the objective lens at the distal end of the endoscope transmitted by the relay optical system to a first camera unit [19, Fig.5] and a second camera unit [19, Fig.5];
the first camera unit and the second camera unit are disposed side by side on the image side of the magnifying unit [Fig.5], and the clear apertures of the first camera unit and the second camera unit [Fig.5: the cameras allow in light on their front faces] are located within the spot range of the emergent light of the magnifying unit [Fig.5];
wherein, the first camera unit is used for receiving the light collected by the objective lens at the distal end of the endoscope transmitted by the magnifying unit, and generating a first image of the target object based on the light [Fig.5, col.4 ll.37-43, col.6 ll.58-60, col.7 ll.11-13]; and
the second camera unit is used for receiving the light collected by the objective lens at the distal end of the endoscope transmitted by the magnifying unit, and generating a second image of the target object based on the light [Fig.5, col.4 ll.37-43, col.6 ll.58-60, col.7 ll.11-13].
In regards to claim 3, Takahashi discloses the 3D endoscope according to claim 1, wherein the first camera unit and the second camera unit may rotate together around the optical axis of the magnifying unit [as the entire device may be rotated about this axis].
In regards to claim 4, Takahashi discloses the 3D endoscope according to claim 1, wherein the exit angle of light of the magnifying unit is more than 15° [The applicant has not set forth what this angle is relative to. As such, it may be more than 15 degrees relative to an unknown line.].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach, among other features an optical 3D endoscope, comprising:
in optical transmitting order, first an objective lens, then a relay optical system, then a magnifying unit, and first and second camera units together,
the objective lens disposed at the distal end of the endoscope, for collecting light reflected by a target object to be observed outside the distal end of the endoscope;
the relay optical system for transmitting the light collected by the objective lens at the distal end of the endoscope to a magnifying unit;
the magnifying unit for transmitting the light to a first camera unit and a second camera unit;
the first camera unit and the second camera unit are disposed side by side on an image side of the magnifying unit, having clear apertures for receiving light from the magnifying unit;
wherein, the first and second camera units are configured to generate first and second images of the target object based on the light, respectively, and
(claim 2) the first and second camera units respectively comprise first and second camera lenses and imaging sensors, wherein the first and second images are magnified images of the target object
OR
(claim 5) the magnifying unit comprises a particular detailed set of lenses
OR
(claim 6) the endoscope further comprises an insertion tube in which the objective lens and relay optical system are disposed, the objective lens being disposed at a distal end of the insertion tube,
the magnifying unit provided in a magnifying unit support, a first end of the magnifying unit support being connected to a proximal end of the insertion tube,
a camera unit support connected to the magnifying unit support, the camera units disposed in the camera unit support, and
a handle connected with one end of the camera unit support.
Takahashi (US 5,557,454) discloses the above except for:
(claims 2 and 5) the particulars of these claims
(claim 6) the magnifying unit support and camera unit support
Wilson (US 2014/0066700) discloses the above for claim 2 except is explicitly recited as not being an endoscope and being an alternative to using an endoscope, as it functions as an endoscope could not (required in antecedent claim 1), for claim 5 the particular details of the claim, and for claim 6 also the handle.
Zhao (US 2018/0011308) discloses the above for claim 2 except for not indicating the optical order position of the magnifying unit as required in claim 1, for claim 5 the particular details of the claim, and for claim 6 the magnifying unit support and camera unit support.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wilson (US 2014/0066700)
Zhao (US 2018/0011308)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON B FAIRCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-5276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5pm Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/AARON B FAIRCHILD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795