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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 16-29 in the reply filed on 06/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is allegedly no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because although there are overlapping classes between different identified groups, the inventions that each of the groups are directed to are still independent or distinct of one another and would require entirely separate search strategies.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Moreover, claims 1, 30, 36-38 are withdrawn as being directed to non-elected invention groups.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species F in Group 1 and Species C in Group 2 in the reply filed on 06/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is allegedly no basis to contend that the identified species are independent. This is not found persuasive because the elected species clearly have differences from their counterparts, specifically the orientation of the sensors in FIG. 2A, and the measurements on several sensors in FIG. 10A.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Moreover, claims 18 and 20 are further withdrawn as being directed to non-elected embodiments.
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 following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
“a wall” in Claim 16
“an endoscope tube” in Claim 16
“a wall proximal to the distal end of an endoscope tube” in Claim 16
“one or more temperature sensors” in Claim 16
“an elliptic cylinder” in Claim 28
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 16, 23, 24, 26 and 28 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a wall proximal to the distal end of an endoscope tube” which is confusing and unclear because the claim language does not properly define the structure of the wall in relation to the device and the endoscope, it is unclear whether the wall is an entirely separate feature or a part of the endoscope, which is made more confusing since the drawings do not depict the “wall” aspect. Moreover, it is unclear how the device can be attached to the wall proximal to the distal end of the tube, when the disclosure and specifically the elected FIGS. 2A-2B clearly depict attachment of the device at the distal end of the endoscope tube, not proximal to it. The examiner suggests amending the claim language to more distinctly claim the structure of the invention as intended, as well as, tending to the drawing objections above.
Claim 16 further recites the limitation “the distal end” in its first appearance. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “at least 90% (e.g., all)” which is a contradiction making the record unclear. Although the examiner is aware that “all” is given as an example of something fulfilling the condition of being “at least 90%,” the examiner nevertheless suggests amending the claim language to keep the record clear as to the requirements of the invention as claimed.
Claims 24 and 26 respectively recite the limitation "said plurality of sensors" in the first appearance. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although the examiner is aware that “said plurality of sensors” refers to the “plurality of far-infrared sensors,” the examiner nonetheless suggests amending the claim language for clarity of the record.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "said linear dispersion" in its first appearance. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the horizontal axis" in its first appearance. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner’s Comments
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-17, 19 and 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaufman (US 20150057548 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Kaufman discloses
A device (thermal IR ring-array imaging device 840, FIG. 11) for attachment to a tubular portion (housing 810 + surface of fiber optic bundle 820, FIG. 11) of an endoscope (endoscope device 800, FIG. 11),
wherein the device for tip section augmentation is attachable to a wall (surface of fiber optic bundle 820, FIG. 11) proximal to the distal end of an endoscope tube (FIG. 11, par. 44 disclose thermal imaging device connected at a forward end of endoscope, i.e. capable of being attached), and
the endoscope comprises a camera (fiber optic bundle 820 + second viewing lens 824, FIG. 11) positioned on the distal end for imaging objects in front of the tube (FIG. 11, par. 43 disclose second lens provides a real-time forward looking visible light view of anatomical objects being examined, i.e. in front of the tube; par. 44 discloses imaging via fiber optics and lenses);
said device for tip section augmentation comprises a plurality of far-infrared sensors and/or one or more temperature sensors (ring-shaped detector element 842, FIG. 11) distributed on a substrate (substrate 844, FIG. 11, par. 44 discloses detector element comprises one or more infrared detectors, i.e. temperature detectors); and
said substrate is attachable to the wall proximal to the distal end of the endoscope (depicted in FIG. 11); and
wherein the plurality of far-infrared sensors, one or more temperature sensors, and camera are configured each to transmit data for processing and analysis in conjunction with one another (par. 44 discloses fiber optics of endoscope and thermal IR ring-array imaging device, i.e. including detector, can work concurrently for imaging objects, i.e. data transmitted in conjunction).
Regarding Claim 17, Kaufman discloses
The device according to claim 16, wherein the field of view of at least one infrared sensor includes an axis perpendicular to the wall surface or perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tube (one or more temperature sensors selected in claim 16 above, therefore, any specific limitations regarding the plurality of far-infrared sensors are moot).
Regarding Claim 19, Kaufman discloses
The device according to claim 16, wherein the field of view of at least one of the plurality of far-infrared sensors and the camera overlap when said device is attached to the endoscope (one or more temperature sensors selected in claim 16 above, therefore, any specific limitations regarding the plurality of far-infrared sensors are moot).
Regarding Claim 21, Kaufman discloses
The device according to claim 16, wherein at least one of the far-infrared sensors has a field of view less than 90° (one or more temperature sensors selected in claim 16 above, therefore, any specific limitations regarding the plurality of far-infrared sensors are moot).
Regarding Claim 22, Kaufman discloses
The device according to claim 16, wherein at least 50% of said plurality of far-infrared sensors independently have a field of view less than 90° (one or more temperature sensors selected in claim 16 above, therefore, any specific limitations regarding the plurality of far-infrared sensors are moot).
Regarding Claim 23, Kaufman discloses
The device according to claim 16, wherein at least 90% (e.g., all) of said plurality of far-infrared sensors independently have a field of view from 35° to 90° (one or more temperature sensors selected in claim 16 above, therefore, any specific limitations regarding the plurality of far-infrared sensors are moot).
Regarding Claim 24, Kaufman discloses
The device according to claim 16, wherein a portion of said plurality of sensors are disposed around or partially around the circumference of the wall when said device is attached to the endoscope (FIG. 11 depicts circumference of surface of fiber optics bundle, i.e. wall; one or more temperature sensors selected in claim 16 above, therefore, any specific limitations regarding the plurality of far-infrared sensors are moot).
Regarding Claim 25, Kaufman discloses
The device according to claim 24, wherein said circumference is perpendicular to the major longitudinal axis of the tube when said device is attached to the endoscope (depicted in FIG. 11).
Regarding Claim 26, Kaufman discloses
The device according to claim 16, wherein a portion of said plurality of sensors are disposed linearly along the wall such that said linear dispersion is substantially parallel with the horizontal axis of the tube when said device is attached to the endoscope (one or more temperature sensors selected in claim 16 above, therefore, any specific limitations regarding the plurality of far-infrared sensors are moot).
Regarding Claim 27, Kaufman discloses
The device according to claim 16, wherein the tube is a cylindrical tube and the substrate is dimensioned for attachment thereto (depicted in FIG. 11).
Regarding Claim 28, Kaufman discloses
The device according to claim 27, wherein said cylindrical tube is an elliptic cylinder or a circular cylinder (depicted in FIG. 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL HADI ABBASI whose telephone number is (571)272-4076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/ABDUL HADI ABBASI/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights