Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to Applicant’s communication filed on 05/11/2026.
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 (US 2019/0142262 A1) 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 16, Tiwary suggests—where Inglis does not disclose—wherein the obscured acquired images obscure a substantial portion of the 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 17, Tiwary suggests—where Inglis does not disclose—wherein the obscured acquired images obscure the entirety of the 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 18, Tiwary suggests—where Inglis does not disclose—wherein the obscured acquired images prevent sole reliance on the integrated display of the video laryngoscope for an intubation procedure (¶ [0056]: Statement of intended use1). 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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim is 6 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.
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
Claims 7-11 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
More specifically, Inglis and Tiwary fail to teach at least, "in response to receiving the indication to operate the video laryngoscope in the direct laryngoscopy training mode, displaying obscured acquired images on an integrated display of the video laryngoscope; receiving an indication to operate the video laryngoscope in a video laryngoscopy mode, receiving an indication to operate the video laryngoscope in a video laryngoscopy mode; 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, the acquired images unobscured," as recited in amended claim 1. There is no teaching or suggestion in Inglis or Tiwary of such modes or a mode that displays obscured acquired images.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As to the recited “direct laryngoscopy training mode” and the “video laryngoscopy mode,” Examiner cannot discern the limiting effect of these features beyond, “in mode A, perform display function 1; in mode B, perform display function 2.” Inglis discloses such dual display modes in steps 306 and 308 as noted supra. The office action concedes that Inglis does not disclose obscuring images, which is why the secondary reference Tiwary is used.
Applicant further argues:
The Office Action cites Tiwary for "modifying a view on a monitor, such as blocking or blurring." Office Action at 3; Tiwary at [0056]. The blurring of the screen in Tiwary, however, is performed due to the detection of a "severe protocol infraction." The blurring is not performed in response to entering a direct laryngoscopy training mode or any intentional user selection. Thus, Tiwary fails to make up for the deficiencies of Inglis and Tiwary, and any combination of Tiwary with Inglis would not have resulted in the claimed technology suggestion in Inglis or Tiwary of such modes or a mode that displays obscured acquired images.
While Examiner does not necessarily disagree with Applicant’s reasons that the invention of Tiwary displays blurred images, Tiwary is only being relied upon for its teaching that live surgical images can be blurred. The reasons why, or conditions under which, the invention of Tiwary displays blurred images are irrelevant, absent some exclusionary claim recitation or a directive in Tiwary which teaches away from combining it with the invention of Inglis.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 have been considered but are moot because the previous rejection has been withdrawn in this office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
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
1A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Since the structure of Tiwary is capable of performing the intended use, the cited combination of Inglis and Tiwary is found to meet the claim.
Prosecution Insights