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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson (2009/0259097).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses a laryngoscope (annotated Fig. 3; para. 0010, Table: Rigid Endoscopes #3), comprising:
a handle 54 having a proximal end and a distal end;
a tube 10, 32 having a proximal end, a distal end, a length extending between the proximal end and the distal end, and a longitudinal axis (e.g., central longitudinal axis) along the length of the tube, the proximal end connected to the proximal end of the handle (id.), the tube 10, 32 having an inner surface defining a lumen internal space 38 (Fig. 4) along the length of the tube, the lumen internal space creating a direct line of sight along the first longitudinal axis through the tube, if desired; and
a camera 40 (Fig. 3) positioned on the tube (i.e., on an inner surface within the wall of the tube) to have a field of view at least partially beyond the distal end of the tube (id.), the camera being offset from the longitudinal axis of the tube such that the direct line of sight along the longitudinal axis through the tube is minimally interrupted (id.).
Regarding claim 2, the laryngoscope further includes a light source 46, 48 injecting light into the tube 10, 32, wherein the light source is a circular light source (e.g., due to the circular shape of the ring portion 32 of the tube within which the light source 46, 48 is mounted).
Regarding claim 3, a light source 46, 48 injects light into the tube 10, 32, wherein the light source comprises a ring 32 of one or more light emitting diodes 46, 48.
Regarding claim 5, the camera is a fiber optic camera (paras. 0021 and 0023).
Regarding clam 6, the field of view of the camera 40 is parallel to and laterally offset from the central longitudinal axis of the lumen internal space 38 (Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 7, a computer processor (paras. 0021, 0023, i.e., electronic communication network) is in communication with the camera 40 (id.); and
one or more display screens M (Fig. 3; paras. 0022-0023) in communication with the one or more computer processors (id.) such that images captured by the camera are displayable on the one or more display screens (id.).
Regarding claim 8, the display screen M is separate from the tube 10, 32 and the handle 54 (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Thompson discloses a laryngoscope (annotated Fig. 3; para. 0010, Table: Rigid Endoscopes #3), comprising:
a handle 54 having a proximal end and a distal end;
a tube 10, 32 having a proximal end, a distal end, a length extending between the proximal end and the distal end, and a first longitudinal axis along the length of the tube (e.g., the central longitudinal axis), the proximal end connected to the proximal end of the handle (annotated Fig. 3), the tube having an inner surface defining a lumen internal space 38 along the length of the tube and an outer surface with a thickness therebetween defining a wall of the tube (Fig. 3), the lumen internal space creating a direct line of sight along the first longitudinal axis through the tube, if desired; and
a camera 40 (Fig. 3) positioned within the wall of the tube (Fig. 3) and has a field of view extending from the distal end of the tube (id.), the camera having a second longitudinal axis offset from the first longitudinal axis of the tube (id.) such that the direct line of sight along the first longitudinal axis through the tube is unobstructed (id.).
Regarding claim 13, Thompson discloses a camera system attachment device for attachment to a laryngoscope (annotated Fig. 3; para. 0010, Table: Rigid Endoscopes #3), comprising:
a camera support (i.e., the walls of the channel 44 through the wall of the tube 10, 32) having longitudinal axis and an opening along the longitudinal axis, the camera support having a proximal end and a distal end (annotated Fig. 3), the camera support is positioned within the wall of lumen 10, 32 of the laryngoscope such that a direct line of sight through a lumen 38 of the laryngoscope is unobstructed;
a camera assembly 40, 50 positioned within the opening of channel 44, the camera assembly comprising a camera 40 positioned toward the distal end of the camera support (Fig. 3); and
a connector (Fig. 3, i.e., the bend transitioning the handle 54 to the rotation shaft 50 of the camera assembly) integrally attached to the camera support and integrally connected to a handle 54 of the laryngoscope to secure the camera assembly in the wall of the lumen of the laryngoscope.
Regarding claim 15, the camera 40 further has an adjustable focal length (para. 0022, the camera can be moved axially/longitudinally), thereby adjusting the focal length, i.e., the distance between the focal plane of the subject and the camera lens.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (2009/0259097).
Regarding claim 4, Thompson discloses the claimed invention including a lumen 38 space having a given diameter and a camera having a second given diameter that appears to be less than approximately 10% of the first diameter (Fig. 3); however, the value of the diameters is not explicitly disclosed.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select diameters such that the second diameter of the camera is less than approximately 10% of the first diameter of the lumen 38, if desired, e.g., to maximize the size of the lumen 38 to facilitate a procedure.
Regarding claim 9, Thompson discloses using a display screen M (Fig. 3; paras. 0022-0023). In addition, Thompson acknowledges that using a first and second display screen is still the standard (para. 0014). A second display screen provides another source of visual information for medical staff to facilitate a surgical procedure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a second display screen, if desired, e.g., to provide another source of visual information for medical staff, to facilitate a surgical procedure and to accord with standards with which the staff is familiar.
Regarding claim 14, the connector (supra; i.e., the bend connecting the handle 54 and shaft 50) is not explicitly removably attached to the camera support.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the handle 54, bend, shaft 50 and other portions of the device removably attached, if desired, e.g., to facilitate manufacturing or assembly.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 08 December 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Pat. No. 11,998,178 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and under 35 U.S.C. 103 that rely on Thompson (2009/0259097), Applicant argues that the camera is not positioned on an inner surface of the tube (claim 1), that a camera is not positioned within the wall of the tube (claim 12), and that a camera support is not configured to be positioned within a lumen of a laryngoscope (claim 13). In addition, Applicant argues that the ring is not part of the tube according to the nomenclature of Thompson. Finally, Applicant argues that Thompson does not disclose a laryngoscope.
With regard to claim 1, the ring was defined as part of the claimed tube in the rejection: “a tube 10, 32 having a proximal end, a distal end, a length extending between the proximal end and the distal end, and a first longitudinal axis along the length of the tube (e.g., the central longitudinal axis)” and “a camera 40 (Fig. 3) positioned on the tube (i.e., on an inner surface within the wall of the tube).” It is noted that portion 20 and the ring portion 32 together form a tubular structure at least in the closed position (e.g., Fig. 3).
Likewise, with regard to claim 12, the ring was defined as part of the claimed tube: “a tube 10, 32 having a proximal end, a distal end, a length extending between the proximal end and the distal end, and a first longitudinal axis along the length of the tube (e.g., the central longitudinal axis)” and “a camera 40 (Fig. 3) positioned within the wall of the tube (Fig. 3).” Again, it is noted that portion 20 and the ring portion 32 together form a tubular structure at least in the closed position (e.g., Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 13, as set forth above, the ring was defined as part of the tube.
Finally, the only mention of a laryngoscope is in the preamble, which in this case cannot be given patentable weight. There are no defining characteristics unique to a laryngoscope positively recited in the claims above what an endoscope would possess (cf. also para. 0010, cited in the rejection, listing a laryngoscope as a type of endoscope). With regard to claim 13, an intended use with respect to a laryngoscope is claimed but the claimed structure is not unique to or limited to that use.
For these reasons, the rejections have been maintained.
As noted above, the double patenting rejection has been overcome by the terminal disclaimer filed 08 December 2025.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID C COMSTOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-4710. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PST.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at 571-272-4719. 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.
DAVID C. COMSTOCK
Examiner
Art Unit 3773
/DAVID C COMSTOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3773
/EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773