DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Specification
The specification was received on 07/15/2025. The amendment is acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument in the Remarks, Weeks in [124], [152] teaches an endoscope system comprises more cameras, each would have a chip to capture image in different characteristics; same as Baumann in [08], [23] teaches a first image sensor and second image sensor, each has a chip to operate the camera function.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220304559 A1 Weeks; Brian Hunter et al. (hereafter Weeks), and further in view of US 20230181014 A1 Baumann; Harald et al. (hereafter Baumann).
Regarding claim 1, Weeks discloses A stereoscopic video endoscope (Fig.1) comprising: a main body ([42]), an elongate shaft (Fig.2, [74]), and a video camera disposed at a distal end of the elongate shaft (Fig.8, [86], the more cameras of portion 166 is the video camera), and the first imaging chip and the second imaging chip differ from each other in at least one of spatial resolution, color resolution, or spectral sensitivity ([86], [124], [152], [161] teaches an endoscope system comprises more cameras, each has a chip to capture image in different characteristics).
Weeks fails to disclose the video camera comprising: a first optical lens system and a first imaging chip being configured to acquire a first image of a structure of interest from a first perspective; and a second optical lens system and a second imaging chip, the second optical lens system and the second imaging chip being configured to acquire a second image of the structure of interest from a second perspective; wherein the first perspective and the second perspective being offset from each other by an angle.
However, Baumann teaches the video camera comprising: However, Baumann teaches a first optical lens system and a first imaging chip being configured to acquire a first image of a structure of interest from a first perspective ([27], [34], [111], a first imaging device comprises of chip based CCD /CMOS image sensor and catadioptric lens, positioned at an angle to capture image ); and a second optical lens system and a second imaging chip, the second optical lens system and the second imaging chip being configured to acquire a second image of the structure of interest from a second perspective ([27], [34], [111], a second imaging device comprises of chip based CCD /CMOS image sensor and catadioptric lens, positioned at an angle to capture image); wherein the first perspective and the second perspective being offset from each other by an angle ([36]), and the first imaging chip and the second imaging chip differ from each other in at least one of spatial resolution, color resolution, or spectral sensitivity ([23], [94], the light sensitive layers of each image sensor detect different reflective light from different regions of an object).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the stereoscopic video endoscope disclosed by Weeks to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Baumann, in order to provide an improved endoscopic device and system, as identified by Baumann.
Regarding claim 2, Baumann teaches The stereoscopic video endoscope of claim 1, wherein the video camera comprises at least one optical element which is shared by the first optical lens system and the second optical lens system ([83]).
Regarding claim 3, Baumann teaches The stereoscopic video endoscope of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first optical lens system and the second optical lens system comprises a prism for deflecting a beam path of light travelling through the respective optical lens system ([108]).
Regarding claim 12, Baumann teaches A video endoscope system, comprising: a stereoscopic video endoscope of claim 1; and a processor comprising hardware, wherein the processor is configured to: receive video image signals from the stereoscopic video endoscope, the video image signals representing a first video image acquired by the first imaging chip and a second video image acquired by the second imaging chip, and selectively apply one or more image processing algorithms to the video image signals for combining the first video image and the second video image into a composite third video image ([60]-[64]).
Claim(s) 4-6, 10, 11, 13, 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeks, in view of Baumann, and further in view of WO 2018077868 A1 SEND ROBERT et al. (hereafter Send).
Regarding claim 4, Send teaches The stereoscopic video endoscope of claim 1, wherein the first imaging chip is a polychromatic imaging chip (P.7 line 31-P.8 line 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Weeks, Baumann and Send before him/her, to modify the stereoscopic video endoscope disclosed by Weeks to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Baumann and Send, in order to provide an improved endoscopic device and system, as identified by Baumann, and an improved simple, cost-efficient and, still, reliable spatial camera for recording 3D-images, as identified by Send.
Regarding claim 5, Baumann teaches The stereoscopic video endoscope of claim 4, wherein the first imaging chip comprises a plurality of first color tilters arranged in a pattern ([55]).
Regarding claim 6, Send teaches The stereoscopic video endoscope of claim 1, wherein the second imaging chip is a monochromatic imaging chip (P.7 line 31-P.8 line 3).
Regarding claim 10, Send teaches The stereoscopic video endoscope of claim 1, wherein the first imaging chip is a polychromatic imaging chip, and the second imaging chip is a monochromatic imaging chip (P.7 line 31-P.8 line 3).
Regarding claim 11, Send teaches The stereoscopic video endoscope of claim 1, wherein the first imaging chip is a polychromatic imaging chip, the first imaging chip comprises a plurality of first color filters arranged in a pattern, and the second imaging chip is a monochromatic imaging chip (P.51 lines 10-22).
Regarding claim 13, Send teaches The video endoscope system of claim 12, wherein the one or more image processing algorithms comprise: a first algorithm; and a second algorithm, wherein the first algorithm is configured to combine the first video image and the second video image into a 3D composite image, and the second algorithm is configured to combine the first video image and the second video image into a 2D composite image of enhanced spatial resolution (p.12 line 35-P.13 line 8).
Regarding claim 14, Baumann teaches The video endoscope system of claim 13, further comprising a third algorithm configured to combine the first video image and the second video image into a 2D composite image of enhanced spectral resolution ([11], [62]).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weeks, in view of Baumann, and further in view of US 20220149098 A1 WANG; Shih-Yuan et al. (hereafter Wang).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches The stereoscopic video endoscope of claim 1, wherein a second pixel size of the second imaging chip is larger than a first pixel size of the first imaging chip ([441]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Weeks, Baumann and Wang before him/her, to modify the stereoscopic video endoscope disclosed by Weeks to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Baumann and Wang, in order to provide an improved endoscopic device and system, as identified by Baumann, and improve optical confinement and reduced crosstalk, as identified by Wang.
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches The stereoscopic video endoscope of claim 1, wherein a second pixel pitch of the second imaging chip is larger than a first pixel pitch of the first imaging chip ([441]).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches The stereoscopic video endoscope of claim 1, wherein the second imaging chip has a higher sensitivity in an NIR wavelength range than the first imaging chip ([45]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 TRACY Y. LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday (8:30 AM- 4:30 PM) EST.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/TRACY Y. LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487