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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 12, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 4 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, Claim 4 claims in lines 2-3 “wherein the laser light is illumination light having a plurality of wavelengths”. It is unclear how coherent laser light can have a plurality of wavelengths. See attached non-patent literature (NPL) “NIF’s Guide to How Lasers Work”. FIG. 21 and paragraph [0085] of the present patent application discuss different luminance values of wavelengths from white light, not coherent laser light. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets the phrase “wherein the laser light is illumination light having a plurality of wavelengths” as “wherein the white light is illumination light including a plurality of wavelengths”.
Appropriate correction by Applicant is required.
Claim 8 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, Claim 8 claims in lines 1-2 “wherein the sensor is different from the optical system”. Examiner is unable to find clarification in the specification as to what this phrase means. That is, it is unclear if the difference is based on the types of instruments, whether they are separate or joined as a single instrument, whether they have different functions, etc. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets this phrase as “wherein the sensor and the optical system have different functions”.
Appropriate correction for Applicant is required.
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 present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1-2, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (US PGPUB 2018/0344136 – “Kikuchi”) in view of Sendai (US PGPUB 2002/0085753 – “Sendai”) and Thompson et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0226532 – “Thompson”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kikuchi discloses:
An endoscopic system (Kikuchi FIG. 2, endoscope device 1), comprising:
an endoscope (Kikuchi FIG. 2, endoscope 2 and light source unit 2 and processor 4) including a white light source (Kikuchi FIG. 2, light source 31a; Kikuchi paragraph [0084], “light source 31a outputs white light”), a white light guide (Kikuchi FIG. 2, light guide 203) coupled to the white light source for transmitting white illumination light from the white light source to a target (Kikuchi FIG. 2, observed region that includes feature “S”), and an optical system for generating an image of the target (Kikuchi FIG. 2, image processing unit 41; Kikuchi paragraph [0093], “image processing unit 41 performs predetermined image processing on an electrical signal input from the endoscope 2 and generates a display image to be displayed by the display unit 5”).
Kikuchi does not explicitly disclose:
a laser source that emits a laser light;
a first optical fiber including a light-emitting surface and a second optical fiber including a light-receiving surface, wherein the first optical fiber transmits the laser light and is configured to irradiate the laser light on the target from the light-emitting surface, and the second optical fiber is configured to receive a return light from the target through the light-receiving surface in response to the irradiated laser light on the target;
wherein the light-emitting surface of the first optical fiber and the light-receiving surface of the second optical fiber are arranged on a same plane.
Sendai is analogous art in the field of endoscopic illumination that teaches:
a laser source (Sendai FIG. 1, semiconductor laser 111) that emits a laser light (Sendai paragraph [0079], “a GaN semiconductor laser 111 that emits an excitation light Lr for obtaining autofluorescent images”);
a first optical fiber (Sendai FIG. 1, light guide 101) including a light-emitting surface (Sendai FIG. 1, lens 103) and a second optical fiber (Sendai FIG. 1, image fiber 102) including a light-receiving surface (Sendai FIG. 1, lens 105), wherein the first optical fiber transmits the laser light and is configured to irradiate the laser light on the target from the light-emitting surface (Sendai FIG. 1, showing excitation light Lr from light guide 101 irradiating target 9), and the second optical fiber is configured to receive a return light from the target through the light-receiving surface in response to the irradiated laser light on the target (Sendai FIG. 1, showing image fiber 102 receiving autofluorescent light Zj reflected off of target 9); and
wherein the light-emitting surface of the first optical fiber and the light-receiving surface of the second optical fiber are arranged on a same plane (Sendai FIG. 1, showing lens 103 of light guide 101 and lens 105 of image fiber 102 on a same plane).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sendai’s laser light source with Kikuchi’s white light source in an endoscope. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope that is capable of both object illumination using white light as well as object illumination using excitation/laser light, thus expanding the capabilities of the endoscope according to needs of a user.
Although Kikuchi discloses a light sensor (Kikuchi FIG. 2, imaging device 201), Kikuchi in view of Sendai does not explicitly teach:
a sensor for measuring a brightness of the return light; and
an analyzer configured to calculate a size of the target based on the measured brightness of the sensor.
Thompson is analogous art in the field of endoscopic target analysis that teaches:
a sensor for measuring a brightness of the return light (Thompson paragraph [0085], “a sensor…to receive reflected light from, the target surface…The intensity of the reflected light is proportional to the distance between the sensor tip and the target surface, and is measured to determine the distance”); and
an analyzer configured to calculate a size of the target based on the measured brightness of the sensor (Thompson paragraph [0091], “The size of the field of view of these images can be plotted against the distance from the target object as measured by the measurement system“; Thompson paragraph [0094], “Once the size of the field of view of the image is known…the size of the target object is determined from the image”. That is, by knowing the distance to the target object as determined by the intensity of the reflected light, the size of the field of view in an image, and thus, the size of the target object, is known.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Thompson’s brightness/size analyzer with the endoscopic system taught by Kikuchi in view of Sendai. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of distance to and size of a target, in order to adjust the position of the endoscope system for optimal viewing of the target without collision therewith.
Regarding Claim 2, Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kikuchi further discloses:
wherein the endoscope further includes an imaging unit (Kikuchi FIG. 2, imaging device 201 and A/D converter 205) including the optical system.
Sendai further teaches:
wherein the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber are separately placed within an insertion portion of the endoscope (Sendai FIG. 1, showing light guide 101 and image fiber 102 separately placed within insertion portion 100),
wherein the laser light is a laser beam of a predetermined luminance (Sendai paragraph [0079], “a GaN semiconductor laser 111 that emits an excitation light Lr for obtaining autofluorescent images”; Examiner interprets the predetermined luminance of the laser beam as that which is capable of obtaining autofluorescent images).
Thompson further teaches:
wherein the analyzer is configured to calculate a distance between a distal end surface of the insertion portion to the target from a ratio between the predetermined luminance and a luminance of the return light (Thompson paragraph [0085], “The intensity of the reflected light is proportional to the distance between the sensor tip and the target surface, and is measured to determine the distance”), and
wherein the analyzer is configured to calculate a size of the target based on the calculated distance, a viewing angle of the imaging unit (Thompson paragraph [0091], “The size of the field of view of these images can be plotted against the distance from the target object as measured by the measurement system“; Thompson paragraph [0094], “Once the size of the field of view of the image is known…the size of the target object is determined from the image”) and a size of an endoscopic image acquired by the imaging unit, and a ratio between the size of the target in the endoscopic image and the size of the endoscopic image (Thompson paragraph [0094], “Once the size of the field of view of the image is known…the size of the target object is determined from the image”.).
Regarding Claim 8, Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Thompson teaches a sensor that measures a brightness of reflected light (Thompson paragraph [0085], “a sensor…to receive reflected light from, the target surface…The intensity of the reflected light is proportional to the distance between the sensor tip and the target surface, and is measured to determine the distance”). Kikuchi discloses an optical system for image processing (Kikuchi FIG. 2, imaging processing unit 41 and A/D converter 205). Therefore, Thompson’s sensor has a function of measuring brightness, while Kikuchi’s optical system has a function of image processing, which is different from the function of Thompson’s sensor.
Regarding Claim 11, Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Sendai further teaches a sensor (Sendai FIG. 1, image obtaining element 503) that is separate from an optical system (Sendai FIG. 1, focusing lens 105) for generating the image.
Thompson teaches that a sensor that is configured to measure the brightness of the return light independently of image data generated by the optical system (Thompson paragraph [0085], “a sensor…to receive reflected light from, the target surface…The intensity of the reflected light is proportional to the distance between the sensor tip and the target surface, and is measured to determine the distance”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (US PGPUB 2018/0344136 – “Kikuchi”) in view of Sendai (US PGPUB 2002/0085753 – “Sendai”), Thompson et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0226532 – “Thompson”), and McMahon et al. (US Patent 6,174,291 – “McMahon”).
Regarding Claim 3, Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Thompson further teaches:
wherein the laser light is excited light (Sendai FIG. 1, showing excitation light Lr from light guide 101 irradiating target 9) and the return light is fluorescent light (Sendai FIG. 1, showing image fiber 102 receiving autofluorescent light Zj reflected off of target 9) excited by the target,
wherein the sensor measures a luminance of the fluorescent light (Thompson paragraph [0085], “a sensor…to receive reflected light from, the target surface”), and
wherein the analyzer is configured to calculate the size of the target based on the luminance of the fluorescent light (Thompson paragraph [0091], “The size of the field of view of these images can be plotted against the distance from the target object as measured by the measurement system“; Thompson paragraph [0094], “Once the size of the field of view of the image is known…the size of the target object is determined from the image”. That is, by knowing the distance to the target object as determined by the intensity of the reflected light, the size of the field of view in an image, and thus, the size of the target object, is known.).
Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson does not explicitly teach wherein the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber are a single optical fiber.
McMahon is analogous art in the field of endoscopic illumination that teaches wherein the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber are a single optical fiber (McMahon FIG. 1A, optical fiber 135; McMahon col. 12, lines 26-32, “The excitation light is coupled to tissue 130 through aperture 205, optical coupler 210, optical fiber 215, optical coupler 220, and through diagnostic optical fiber 135. In response to the excitation light, return light is received from tissue 130 through diagnostic optical fiber 135”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute McMahon’s single fiber for Sendai’s two light fibers in the endoscopic system taught by Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to makes this substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a smaller insertion portion for an endoscope, due to the shared function of a single light guide/fiber.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (US PGPUB 2018/0344136 – “Kikuchi”) in view of Sendai (US PGPUB 2002/0085753 – “Sendai”), Thompson et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0226532 – “Thompson”), and Ikuta (US PGPUB 2020/0154985 – “Ikuta”).
Regarding Claim 4, Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson does not explicitly teach:
wherein the white illumination light is illumination light including light having a plurality of wavelengths,
wherein the return light is reflected light of the illumination light reflected by the target,
wherein the sensor measures the brightness of the reflected light for each wavelength, and
wherein the analyzer identifies a type of the target based on the measured brightness of the sensor.
Ikuta is analogous art in the field of endoscopic illumination that teaches:
wherein the white illumination light is illumination light including light having a plurality of wavelengths (Ikuta paragraph [0035], “After illumination of the spectrally diffracted light 202 (e.g., red, green, and blue light) on the sample 200”),
wherein the return light is reflected light of the illumination light reflected by the target (Ikuta paragraph [0035], “light is reflected, scattered, photoluminescence emitted by the sample 200”),
wherein the sensor measures the brightness of the reflected light for each wavelength (Ikuta paragraph [0038], “the collected light is delivered to the spectrometer 220 via the detection fiber 210. The spectrometer 220 obtains one-dimensional (1D) spectral data for the 3 wavelength bands of light (e.g., blue, green, and red light).”), and
wherein the analyzer identifies a type of the target based on the measured brightness of the sensor (Ikuta paragraph [0020], “The broadband light has sufficient bandwidth to allow for spatial resolution along a spectrally dispersed dimension…the wavelengths of the broadband light are optimized for identifying specific features such as blood, tissue, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikuto’s broadband light analysis with the endoscopic system taught by Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscopic system that is able to identify structural features with both coherent and broadband light, in order to utilize light that is optimal for certain biological features as well as in situ conditions.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (US PGPUB 2018/0344136 – “Kikuchi”) in view of Sendai (US PGPUB 2002/0085753 – “Sendai”), Thompson et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0226532 – “Thompson”), Ikuta (US PGPUB 2020/0154985 – “Ikuta”), and Chia et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0289937 – “Chia”).
Kikuchi in view of Sendai, Thompson, and Ikuta does not explicitly teach wherein the target is a stone and the type of the target identified by the analyzer is selected from the group consisting of a cholesterol-based stone, a mixed stone, and a dye stone.
Chia is analogous art in the field of endoscopic target identification that teaches wherein the target is a stone and the type of the target identified by the analyzer is selected from the group consisting of a cholesterol-based stone, a mixed stone, and a dye stone (Chia FIG. 1, stone analyzer 170 including Laser Induced Breakdown Spectrometer (LIBS) 184; Chia paragraph [0059], “stone analyzer 170 comprises a Laser Induced Breakdown Spectrometer (LIBS) 184 configured to perform laser induced breakdown spectroscopy on a targeted stone 120 through, for example, the secondary probe 118, and output a spectrometer reading indicative of a composition of the targeted stone 120; Chia paragraph [0003], “In the laser application, a holmium doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Ho:YAG) laser rod, or a thulium doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Tm:YAG) laser rod are used to produce laser energy having a wavelength of around 2000-2100 nm to break up stones of all types.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chia’s laser lithotripsy with the optical probe system taught by Kikuchi in view of Sendai, Thompson, and Ikuta. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a system that is capable of breaking up a wide range of stones, as described in Chia paragraph [0003].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (US PGPUB 2018/0344136 – “Kikuchi”) in view of Sendai (US PGPUB 2002/0085753 – “Sendai”), Thompson et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0226532 – “Thompson”), and Vayser et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0012783 – “Vayser”).
Regarding Claim 6, Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson does not explicitly teach wherein the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber are a single optical fiber within an insertion portion of the endoscope;
wherein a tip of the single optical fiber is disposed on the distal end surface of the insertion portion.
McMahon is analogous art in the field of endoscopic illumination that teaches wherein the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber are a single optical fiber (McMahon FIG. 1B, optical fiber 135; McMahon col. 12, lines 26-32, “The excitation light is coupled to tissue 130 through aperture 205, optical coupler 210, optical fiber 215, optical coupler 220, and through diagnostic optical fiber 135. In response to the excitation light, return light is received from tissue 130 through diagnostic optical fiber 135”) within an insertion portion of the endoscope (McMahon FIG. 1B, endoscope 100);
wherein a tip of the single optical fiber is disposed on the distal end surface (McMahon FIG. 1B, distal end 110 from which optical fiber 135 extend) of the insertion portion.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute McMahon’s single fiber for Sendai’s two light fibers in the endoscopic system taught by Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to makes this substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a smaller insertion portion for an endoscope, due to the shared function of a single light guide/fiber.
Kikuchi in view of Sendai, Thompson, and McMahon does not explicitly teach:
an aspiration channel,
wherein the insertion portion of the endoscope has a distal end surface and a protruding portion, an end surface of the protruding portion protruding more anteriorly than the distal end surface, and
wherein an opening of the aspiration channel is disposed in the end surface of the protruding portion.
Vayser is analogous art in the field of endoscopic operations that teaches:
an aspiration channel (Vayser FIG. 1A, suction lumen 12L within suction tube 12),
wherein the insertion portion of the endoscope (Vayser FIG. 1, apparatus 10, which when combined with Kikuchi’s endoscope 2 shown in Kikuchi FIG. 2 becomes part of the endoscope) has a distal end surface (Vayser FIG. 1, distal end surface of waveguide 14) and a protruding portion (Vayser FIG. 1, protruding distal portion 12D of suction tube 12), an end surface of the protruding portion protruding more anteriorly than the distal end surface (Vayser FIG. 1, showing distal end of distal portion 12D more anterior/distal than the distal end surface of the illumination waveguide 14),
wherein an opening of the aspiration channel is disposed in the end surface of the protruding portion (Vayser FIG. 1, showing opening of distal portion 12D of suction tube 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Vayser’s distally protruding suction tube with the endoscopic system taught by Kikuchi in view of Sendai, Thompson, and McMahon. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an optical probe system that provide illumination for a suction channel/tube being utilized (see also Vayser FIG. 4A).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (US PGPUB 2018/0344136 – “Kikuchi”) in view of Sendai (US PGPUB 2002/0085753 – “Sendai”), Thompson et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0226532 – “Thompson”), and Igarashi (US PGPUB 2008/0007716 – “Igarashi”).
Regarding Claim 7, Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson does not explicitly teach:
wherein the endoscope further includes an insertion portion,
wherein the same plane is a distal end surface of the insertion portion.
Igarashi is analogous art in the field of endoscopic illumination that teaches:
wherein the endoscope (Igarashi FIG. 7, endoscope 31) further includes an insertion portion (Igarashi FIG. 7, insertion portion 35),
wherein the same plane is a distal end surface of the insertion portion (Igarashi FIG. 7, showing distal end of light emitting light guide33 and distal end of detection unit 4B of signal cable 38 on a same plane at the distal end portion 37 of insertion portion 35).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Igarashi’s co-planar light emitters/receivers for Sendai’s light-emitting/receiving surfaces in the endoscopic system taught by Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of an endoscopic system having an unfocused light source/reflection in order avoid any optical artifacts that are caused by lenses.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (US PGPUB 2018/0344136 – “Kikuchi”) in view of Sendai (US PGPUB 2002/0085753 – “Sendai”), Thompson et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0226532 – “Thompson”), and Sugimoto (US PGPUB 2006/0020169 – “Sugimoto”).
Regarding Claim 9, Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Sendai further teaches wherein the white light guide is configured to include the first light guide (Sendai FIG. 1, light guide 101 emitting white light Lw; Sendai paragraph [0078], “light guide 101 consists of a bundled white-light guide 101a and excitation-light guide 101b in the form of an integrated cable”) and the second optical fiber (Sendai FIG. 1, image fiber 102 receiving reflected image light Zw).
Sendai does not explicitly teach that Sendai’s light guide 101 for transmitting both white light and excitation light is an optical fiber.
Sugimoto is analogous art in the field of endoscopic illumination that teaches a light fiber for emitting both white light and excitation light (Sugimoto FIG. 2, light guide 16; Sugimoto paragraph [0040], “a light guide 16 that is constituted by bundling plurality of optical fibers”; Sugimoto FIG. 2, showing light from excitation light source 33 and white light source 30 being combined into light guide 16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Sugimoto’s light fiber bundle 16 for Sendai’s light guide 101 in the endoscopic system taught by Kikuchi in view of Sendai and Thompson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this simple
substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of an endoscope having a flexible insertion portion with a fiber light guide that has sufficient flexibility to withstand breakage as the insertion portion flexes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No combination of the identified prior art teaches or suggests wherein the first optical fiber has a relatively large diameter compared to the second optical fiber.
The closest identified prior art is Sendai (US PGPUB 2002/0085753 – “Sendai”) and Ohashi (US PGPUB 2014/0005483 – “Ohashi”). Sendai FIG. 1 teaches a first light guide (Sendai FIG. 1, light guide 101) and a second optical fiber (Sendai FIG. 1, image fiber 102), but as shown in Sendai FIG. 1 the two optical guides/fibers appear to be a same size. Ohashi FIG. 2 shows lighting windows 22 and imaging window 23 being different sizes, but the lighting windows 22 are smaller than the imaging window 23. Although the windows are not the same as optical fibers, they nonetheless are representative of prior art in which the illumination component is smaller, not larger, than the image receiving component. Furthermore, 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.
Claim 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No combination of the identified prior art teaches or suggests the feature of calculating the size of the target directly from the measured brightness of the return light independent of image analysis of the target.
The closest identified prior art is Thompson et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0226532 – “Thompson”), which teaches calculating the size of the target based on the image of the target
(Thompson paragraph [0091], “The size of the field of view of these images can be plotted against the distance from the target object as measured by the measurement system“).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights