Detailed Action
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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. If this application names joint inventors, 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 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inglis in view of Tiwary et al (US 2023/0402167 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Inglis discloses a method for operating a video laryngoscope in a direct laryngoscopy training mode (Abstract), the method comprising acquiring images using a camera of the video laryngoscope (108), receiving an indication to operate the video laryngoscope in a direct laryngoscopy mode (304), receiving the indication to operate the video laryngoscope in the direct laryngoscopy training mode (308), receiving an indication to operate the video laryngoscope in a video laryngoscopy mode (304), and in response to receiving the indication to operate the video laryngoscope in the video laryngoscopy mode, displaying, on the integrated display of the video laryngoscope (22), the acquired images (306).
Tiwary suggests—where Inglis does not disclose—in response to receiving the indication to operate the video laryngoscope in the direct laryngoscopy training mode, displaying obscured acquired images (¶ [0056]: intervention comprises … modifying a view on a monitor, such as blocking or blurring). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Inglis and Tiwary in order to train the user to use the device utilizing other senses than sight.
Regarding claim 2, Tiwary suggests—where Inglis does not disclose—wherein the obscured acquired images include the acquired images and one or more of a blur, a watermark, or overlaid text (¶ [0056]: intervention comprises … modifying a view on a monitor, such as blocking or blurring). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Inglis and Tiwary in order to train the user to use the device utilizing other senses than sight.
Regarding claim 3, Tiwary suggests—where Inglis does not disclose—in response to receiving the indication to operate the video laryngoscope in the video laryngoscopy mode, reducing a brightness of a light source of the video laryngoscope (¶ [0056]: intervention comprises … dimming or brightening the lights). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Inglis and Tiwary in order to train the user to use the device utilizing other senses than sight.
Regarding claim 4, Inglis discloses wherein the indication to operate the video laryngoscope in the video laryngoscopy mode is any input at the integrated display of the video laryngoscope (¶ [0109]: user may override image block by user input; ¶ [0067]: screen may accept user inputs through touch).
Regarding claim 8, Tiwary suggests—where Inglis does not disclose—the video laryngoscope further comprising a light source with an adjustable brightness (¶ [0056]: intervention comprises … dimming or brightening the lights). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Inglis and Tiwary in order to train the user to use the device utilizing other senses than sight.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inglis in view of Tiwary and Ghezelghieh et al (US 2022/0296334 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ghezelghieh suggests—where Inglis does not disclose—recording the acquired images in a recording, and labelling at least a portion of the recording as a training session (¶ [0094]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Inglis and Ghezelghieh in order to save the videos for future training applications.
Regarding claim 11, Ghezelghieh suggests—where Inglis does not disclose—wherein the acquired images are stored in memory of the video laryngoscope, and wherein at least a portion of the acquired images are labeled a training session (¶ [0094]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Inglis and Ghezelghieh in order to save the videos for future training applications.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inglis in view of Tiwary and McWilliam et al (US 2017/0105614 A1).
Regarding claim 6, McWilliam suggests—where Inglis does not disclose—displaying, at the integrated display of the video laryngoscope, a torque indicator associated with an amount of torque detected by the video laryngoscope (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Inglis and McWilliam in order to alert the user to possible injury to the patient or damage to the instrument.
Regarding claim 10, McWilliam suggests—where Inglis does not disclose—wherein the video laryngoscope further comprises a torque sensor, and the processor further operates to acquire torque data from the torque sensor, and transmit the torque data to the external display for display (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Inglis and McWilliam in order to alert the user to possible injury to the patient or damage to the instrument.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inglis in view of Tiwary.
Regarding claim 7, Inglis discloses a video laryngoscope training mode system (Abstract), comprising an external display (¶ [0051]: remote display), and a video laryngoscope comprising an integrated display (22), a camera that acquires images while the video laryngoscope is powered on (108), a processor (70) that operates to receive an indication to operate the video laryngoscope in a direct laryngoscopy training mode (304), and receiving the indication to operate the video laryngoscope in the direct laryngoscopy training mode (308). While Inglis is silent on transmitting the acquired images to the external display for unobscured display of the acquired images concurrently with displaying the filtered images at the integrated display, Inglis discloses that the remote display can be placed outside of the viewing range of the endoscope operator (¶ [0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Inglis to display unobscured images on the remote display concurrent with blocked images on the integrated display for the benefit of surgical overseers and observers.
Tiwary suggests—where Inglis does not disclose—in response to receiving the indication to operate the video laryngoscope in the direct laryngoscopy training mode, displaying obscured acquired images (¶ [0056]: intervention comprises … modifying a view on a monitor, such as blocking or blurring). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Inglis and Tiwary in order to train the user to use the device utilizing other senses than sight.
Claims 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inglis in view of Tiwary and McGrath.
Regarding claim 12, Inglis discloses a video laryngoscope (Abstract) comprising a handle portion (Fig, 1), a display screen coupled to the handle portion (22), a blade portion coupled to the handle portion (Fig. 1) configured to be inserted into a mouth of a patient (Abstract), a camera positioned at a distal end of the blade portion that acquires images while the video laryngoscope is powered on (38), a light source positioned at the distal end of the blade portion (76), a processor (70) that operates to activate a direct laryngoscopy training mode (306).
Tiwary suggests—where Inglis does not disclose—receiving acquired images from the camera in response to activating the direct laryngoscopy training mode and displaying obscured acquired images on the display screen (¶ [0056]: intervention comprises … modifying a view on a monitor, such as blocking or blurring), and increasing a brightness or intensity of the light source (¶ [0056]: intervention comprises … dimming or brightening the lights). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Inglis and Tiwary in order to train the user to use the device utilizing other senses than sight.
McGrath suggests—where Inglis does not disclose—a power switch that powers the video laryngoscope on and off in response to user input (claim 26). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Inglis, Tiwary and McGrath in order to protect the electronics of the system while it is being maneuvered or jostled.
Regarding claim 13, Inglis discloses wherein the processor operates to transmit the acquired images to an external display for unobscured display of the acquired images (¶ [0051]: remote display).
Regarding claim 15, while Inglis is silent on wherein while in the direct laryngoscopy training mode, the processor operates to display, on the display screen, unobscured device information, Inglis discloses that the remote display can be placed outside of the viewing range of the endoscope operator (¶ [0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Inglis to display unobscured images on the remote display concurrent with blocked images on the integrated display for the benefit of surgical overseers and observers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inglis in view of Tiwary, McGrath and Iwane (US 2022/0265129 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Iwane suggests—where Inglis does not disclose—wherein activating the direct laryngoscopy training mode is based on receiving a long press of the power switch (¶ [0095]: long press operation for activating the mode changeover switch). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Inglis, Tiwary, McGrath and Iwane in order to simplify the user interface by using buttons for multiple purposes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715