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
Due to Applicant’s amendments in the claims 05/13/2026, the restriction dated 02/13/2026 has been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the actuator, positional sensor, wireless power supply, transparent fluid, time-of-flight sensor must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “receiver” in claim 1, 2, 5-10, 12, 23-24, and “transmitter” in claims 3, 6-9, 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as” light transferring surfaces” (page 45) or “coils” (page 47) performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-8, 10, 13-14, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2346385B1 to Irion et al. (hereinafter “Irion”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0397232 to Ulmschneider et al. (hereinafter “Ulmschneider”).
Regarding claim 1, Irion discloses an endoscope, comprising: a fixed coupling member (11, Fig. 1, [0074]), and a rotatable shaft member including a shaft (10, Fig. 1, [0074]) having a shaft axis extending in an axial direction (12, Fig. 1, [0076]), wherein the shaft has a tip end (distal end of 10) and a mounting end (proximal end of 10), wherein the shaft is configured to transmit light from the mounting end to the tip end (1, Fig. 1, [0075]) and to transmit image information from the tip end to the mounting end (2, Fig. 1, [0075]), wherein the fixed coupling member and the rotatable shaft member are connected to each other such that the rotatable shaft member is unlimitedly rotatable by 360o or more about the shaft axis relative to the fixed coupling member ([0082]), and wherein the rotatable shaft member has a receiver configured to receive energy (15, Fig. 1, [0079]).
Irion fails to expressly teach wherein the fixed coupling member comprises an actuator for rotating the rotatable shaft member relative to the fixed coupling member, and wherein the fixed coupling member comprises a positional sensor for detecting the position of the rotatable shaft member relative to the fixed coupling member.
However, Ulmschneider teaches of an endoscope (10’, Fig. 6, [0072]) wherein the fixed coupling member comprises an actuator (59, Fig. 6, [0072]) for rotating the rotatable shaft member (18’) relative to the fixed coupling member (12), and wherein the fixed coupling member comprises a positional sensor for detecting the position of the rotatable shaft member relative to the fixed coupling member ([0033], [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irion to utilize the actuator and sensor, as taught by Ulmschneider It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of rotating the shaft (0072 of Ulmschneider) and electronically erecting the endoscopic image provided by the image sensor (0074 of Ulmschneider).
Regarding claim 2, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 1, and Irion further discloses wherein the fixed coupling member has an image information passage configured to transfer the image information from the rotatable shaft member in the axial direction (Irion: 7, Fig. 1, [0075]).
Regarding claim 3, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the fixed coupling member has a transmitter configured to input the energy to the receiver in the axial direction or radial direction (3, Fig. 1, [0075]).
Regarding claim 4, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the fixed coupling member has at least one port for receiving light from a light source (3, Fig. 1, [0075]), and wherein the fixed coupling member is configured to transmit energy in the form of light to the receiver of the rotatable shaft member in the axial direction ([0079]).
Regarding claim 5, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 4, and Irion further discloses wherein the at least one port is connected to the fixed coupling member such that the light is inputted into the fixed coupling member in a radial direction perpendicular to the axial direction (Irion: 3, Fig. 1, [0075]), and wherein the fixed coupling member is configured to redirect the light so as to be transmitted to the receiver in the axial direction (Irion: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 1, and Irion further discloses wherein the fixed coupling member has a transmitter (3, Fig. 1, [0075]), wherein the transmitter of the fixed coupling member and the receiver of the rotatable shaft member are each formed as a light transfer surface (3, 15), wherein the receiver and the transmitter are facing each other in the axial direction and are configured to transfer the light (Fig. 1).
Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, fails to expressly teach wherein the receiver and the transmitter have a circular shape.
However, the Examiner is of the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the modified device of Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, to be shaped as claimed since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)). Additionally, it would've been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the receiver and the transmitter have a circular shape because Applicant has not disclosed that such relative rotation of the arms provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a problem.
Regarding claim 7, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 6, and Irion further discloses wherein the receiver and the transmitter are arranged circumferentially on an extension of the shaft axis (3, 15) and have a through hole for passing the image information passage through the receiver and the transmitter (7).
Regarding claim 8, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 6, and Irion further discloses wherein the transmitter and receiver are made of glass, transparent plastic, or glass fiber (3, 15).
Regarding claim 10, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 1, and Irion further discloses wherein the rotatable shaft member includes at least one light source that is operated by electric energy received by the receiver (1, Fig. 1, [0075]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2346385B1 to Irion et al. (hereinafter “Irion”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0397232 to Ulmschneider et al. (hereinafter “Ulmschneider”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0030707 to Dillion.
Regarding claim 9, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 6.
Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, fails to expressly teach wherein the transmitter and the receiver are spaced apart from each other in the axial direction so as to form a gap between the receiver and the transmitter, wherein a transparent fluid is provided within the gap.
However, Dillion teaches of an endoscope (Fig. 1) wherein the transmitter and the receiver are spaced apart from each other in the axial direction so as to form a gap (114) between the receiver and the transmitter, wherein a transparent fluid is provided within the gap (134).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, to utilize a gap with fluid, as taught by Dillion. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of assisting the operating procedure ([0003] of Dllion).
Regarding claim 13, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 1.
Irion, in view of Ulmschneider fails to expressly teach wherein the energy is inputted to the rotatable shaft member via brush contacts between the rotatable shaft member and the fixed coupling member in the form of electrical energy.
However, Ulmschneider further teaches wherein the energy is inputted to the rotatable shaft member via brush contacts between the rotatable shaft member and the fixed coupling member in the form of electrical energy ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irion, in view of Ulmschneider to utilize brush contacts, as taught by Ulmschneider It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providngin a slide contact ([0023] of Ulmschneider).
Regarding claim 14, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 1, and Irion further discloses wherein the rotatable shaft member has different light sources each having a different wavelength (Irion: [0024]).
Regarding claim 24, Irion discloses a method of using an endoscope, the method comprising:providing an endoscope comprising:a fixed coupling member(11, Fig. 1, [0074]), anda rotatable shaft member including a shaft having a shaft axis extending in an axial direction(10, Fig. 1, [0074]), wherein the shaft has a tip end and a mounting end(10, Fig. 1, [0074]), wherein the shaft is configured to transmit light from the mounting end to the tip end (1, Fig. 1, [0075]) and to transmit image information from the tip end to the mounting end(2, Fig. 1, [0075]), wherein the fixed coupling member and the rotatable shaft member are connected to each other such that the rotatable shaft member is unlimitedly rotatable about the shaft axis relative to the fixed coupling member ([0082]), and wherein the rotatable shaft member has a receiver configured to receive energy(15, Fig. 1, [0079]).
Irion fails to expressly teach wherein the fixed coupling member comprises an actuator for rotating the rotatable shaft member relative to the fixed coupling member, wherein the fixed coupling member comprises a sensor for detecting the position of the rotatable shaft member relative to the fixed coupling member, and rotating the rotatable shaft member more than 360 o in one direction relative to the fixed coupling member.
However, Ulmschneider teaches of a method wherein the fixed coupling member comprises an actuator for rotating the rotatable shaft member relative to the fixed coupling member(59, Fig. 6, [0072]), wherein the fixed coupling member comprises a sensor for detecting the position of the rotatable shaft member relative to the fixed coupling member([0033], [0074]), and rotating the rotatable shaft member more than 360 o in one direction relative to the fixed coupling member ([0033], [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irion to utilize the actuator and sensor, as taught by Ulmschneider It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of rotating the shaft (0072 of Ulmschneider) and electronically erecting the endoscopic image provided by the image sensor (0074 of Ulmschneider).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2346385B1 to Irion et al. (hereinafter “Irion”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0397232 to Ulmschneider et al. (hereinafter “Ulmschneider”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0367116 to Ogura et al. (hereinafter “Ogura”).
Regarding claim 11, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 1.
Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, fails to expressly teach wherein the energy is inputted to the rotatable shaft member by a wireless power supply.
However, Ogura teaches of an endoscope (Fig. 1) wherein the energy is inputted to the rotatable shaft member by a wireless power supply (Ogura: 115, Fig. 10, [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, to utilize a wireless power supply, as taught by Ogura. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of supplying power ([0073] of Ogura).
Claim(s) 12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2346385B1 to Irion et al. (hereinafter “Irion”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0397232 to Ulmschneider et al. (hereinafter “Ulmschneider”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0154979 to Michalca et al. (hereinafter “Mihalca”).
Regarding claim 12, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 1, wherein the fixed coupling member has a transmitter (3), wherein the receiver and the transmitter are facing each other in the axial direction and are configured to transfer the energy (3, 15).
Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, fails to expressly teach wherein the transmitter of the fixed coupling member is formed as a transmission coil and the receiver of the rotatable shaft member is formed as receiving coil.
However, Michalca teaches of an endoscope (100) wherein the transmitter of the fixed coupling member is formed as a transmission coil and the receiver of the rotatable shaft member is formed as receiving coil ([0026]-[0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, to utilize a transmission coil and receiving coil, as taught by Michalca. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of rotating the components ([0027] of Michalca).
Regarding claim 17, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider teaches the endoscope of claim 1.
Irion, in view of Ulmschneider fails to expressly teach wherein the fixed coupling member has an adjustment means for adjusting the focus of the endoscope automatically and/or manually.
However, Michalca teaches of an endoscope (Fig. 1) wherein the fixed coupling member has an adjustment means for adjusting the focus of the endoscope automatically and/or manually (114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irion, in view of Ulmschneide, to utilize a focusing ring, as taught by Michalca. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of adjusting the focus ([0029] of Michalca).
Claim(s) 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2346385B1 to Irion et al. (hereinafter “Irion”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0397232 to Ulmschneider et al. (hereinafter “Ulmschneider”) and further in view of WO2016111373A1 to Yabusaki et al. (hereinafter “Yabusaki”).
Regarding claim 15, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 1.
Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, fails to expressly teach further comprising a cleaning device configured to clean the tip end of the shaft by wiping and/or vibrating.
However, Yabusaki teaches of an endoscope (Fig. 1) further comprising a cleaning device configured to clean the tip end of the shaft by wiping and/or vibrating (4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, to utilize a cleaning device, as taught by Yabusaki. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of cleaning the lens (abstract of Yabusaki).
Regarding claim 16, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches endoscope of claim 1.
Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, fails to expressly teach further comprising a cleaning fluid supply device configured to transfer a cleaning fluid and/or gas to the tip end of the shaft and to eject the cleaning fluid and/or gas towards the tip end of the shaft.
However, Yabusaki teaches of an endoscope (Fig. 1) further comprising a cleaning fluid supply device configured to transfer a cleaning fluid and/or gas to the tip end of the shaft and to eject the cleaning fluid and/or gas towards the tip end of the shaft ( page 5 air / water supply channel (not shown)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, to utilize a cleaning device, as taught by Yabusaki. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of cleaning the lens (abstract of Yabusaki).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2346385B1 to Irion et al. (hereinafter “Irion”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0397232 to Ulmschneider et al. (hereinafter “Ulmschneider”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0142250 to Maas et al. (hereinafter “Maas).
Regarding claim 18, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 1.
Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, fails to expressly teach further comprising a time-of-flight sensor.
However, Maas teaches of an endoscope (Fig. 2) further comprising a time-of-flight sensor (claim 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, to utilize a time of flight sensor, as taught by Maas. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing a distance image data set ([0052] of Maas).
Claim(s) 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2346385B1 to Irion et al. (hereinafter “Irion”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0397232 to Ulmschneider et al. (hereinafter “Ulmschneider”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0391383 to Duckett et al. (hereinafter “Duckett”).
Regarding claim 20, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, teaches the endoscope of claim 1, comprising an imaging system (Fig. 1).
Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, fails to expressly teach wherein the imaging system comprises: an optical channel configured to transfer light,a first sensor configured to generate first image data by imaging an object along a first optical path, anda second sensor configured to generate second image data by imaging the object along a second optical path,wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are focus shifted, and wherein the first optical path and the second optical path are guided at least partly through the optical channel.
However, Duckett teaches of an analogous device wherein the imaging system comprises: an optical channel configured to transfer light,a first sensor configured to generate first image data by imaging an object along a first optical path, anda second sensor configured to generate second image data by imaging the object along a second optical path,wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are focus shifted, and wherein the first optical path and the second optical path are guided at least partly through the optical channel (Duckett: [0038]- [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, to utilize an imaging system, as taught by Duckett. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of capturing the image (abstract of Duckett).
Regarding claim 21, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, and Duckett, teaches the endoscope of claim 20, and Duckett further teaches wherein the imaging system further includes a control unit configured to generate depth information of the object based on the first image data and the second image data (Duckett: ([0050] – CCU).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2346385B1 to Irion et al. (hereinafter “Irion”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0397232 to Ulmschneider et al. (hereinafter “Ulmschneider”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0391383 to Duckett et al. (hereinafter “Duckett”) and U.S. Publication No. 2014/0212013 to Han.
Regarding claim 22, Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, and Duckett teaches the endoscope of claim 21.
Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, and Duckett fails to expressly teach wherein the control unit is further configured to generate the depth information by comparing the entropy of at least one first patch of the first image data and of at least one second patch of the second image data, wherein the location of the at least one first patch in the first image data corresponds to the location of the at least one second patch in the second image data.
However, Han teaches of an analogous device wherein the control unit is further configured to generate the depth information by comparing the entropy of at least one first patch of the first image data and of at least one second patch of the second image data, wherein the location of the at least one first patch in the first image data corresponds to the location of the at least one second patch in the second image data ([0031]-[0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, and Duckett to utilize a control unit, as taught by Han. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of analyzing the image (abstract of Han).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2346385B1 to Irion et al. (hereinafter “Irion”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0397232 to Ulmschneider et al. (hereinafter “Ulmschneider”) and in view of U.S. Publication No. 2009/0105543 to Miller et al. (hereinafter “Miller”).
Regarding claim 23, Irion discloses an endoscope system, comprising :an endoscope (Fig. 1) comprising: a fixed coupling member (11, Fig. 1, [0074]), and a rotatable shaft member including a shaft having a shaft axis extending in an axial direction (10, Fig. 1, [0074]), wherein the shaft has a tip end and a mounting end (10, Fig. 1, [0074]), wherein the shaft is configured to transmit light from the mounting end to the tip end (1, Fig. 1, [0075]) and to transmit image information from the tip end to the mounting end (2, Fig. 1, [0075]), wherein the fixed coupling member and the rotatable shaft member are connected to each other such that the rotatable shaft member is unlimitedly rotatable about the shaft axis relative to the fixed coupling member ([0082]), and wherein the rotatable shaft member has a receiver configured to receive energy (15).
Irion fails to expressly teach wherein the fixed coupling member comprises an actuator for rotating the rotatable shaft member relative to the fixed coupling member, wherein the fixed coupling member comprises a sensor for detecting the position of the rotatable shaft member relative to the fixed coupling member, and a trocar having a cannula configured to at least partly receive the endoscope such that the endoscope is moveable with respect to the trocar, wherein the cannula has a distal opening configured such that the endoscope may pass at least partly through the distal opening, wherein the cannula comprises a cleaning device provided at the distal opening and configured to clean at least the tip end of the shaft when the tip end passes the distal opening.
However, Ulmschneider teaches of an endoscope (10’, Fig. 6, [0072]) wherein the fixed coupling member comprises an actuator (59, Fig. 6, [0072]) for rotating the rotatable shaft member (18’) relative to the fixed coupling member (12), and wherein the fixed coupling member comprises a positional sensor for detecting the position of the rotatable shaft member relative to the fixed coupling member ([0033], [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irion to utilize the actuator and sensor, as taught by Ulmschneider It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of rotating the shaft (0072 of Ulmschneider) and electronically erecting the endoscopic image provided by the image sensor (0074 of Ulmschneider).
Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, fails to expressly teach a trocar having a cannula configured to at least partly receive the endoscope such that the endoscope is moveable with respect to the trocar, wherein the cannula has a distal opening configured such that the endoscope may pass at least partly through the distal opening, wherein the cannula comprises a cleaning device provided at the distal opening and configured to clean at least the tip end of the shaft when the tip end passes the distal opening.
However, Miller teaches of an endoscope a trocar (72, Fig. 4A, [0044]) having a cannula configured to at least partly receive the endoscope such that the endoscope is moveable with respect to the trocar (70), wherein the cannula has a distal opening configured such that the endoscope may pass at least partly through the distal opening (Fig. 4a), wherein the cannula comprises a cleaning device provided at the distal opening and configured to clean at least the tip end of the shaft when the tip end passes the distal opening (74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irion, in view of Ulmschneider, to utilize a trocar and cannula, as taught by Miller. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing cleaning ([0044] of Miller).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTEN A. SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM, and Friday 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM.
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, Mike 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.
/C.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights