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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Schaefer et al. US3,437,804.
For claim 1, Schaefer discloses “An optical system, comprising:
a lens (left portion of 10; fig 1,2) having: an input surface configured to receive light from at least one light source (12);
an output surface (surface adjacent to the blocking layer 34; 3:51-55) configured such that the light exits the lens through the output surface of the lens; and
a peripheral surface (fig 2) extending between the input surface of the lens and the output surface of the lens, and configured to direct, via total internal reflection (fig 2; 2:59-66), at least a portion of light incident on the peripheral surface of the lens to:
exit the lens through the output surface of the lens;
converge to an output focal point; and
diverge from the output focal point (fig 2); and
a tapered light pipe (right portion of 10; fig 2, 3 shows the tapered end of the ellipsoid – the structure of Schaefer mimics that of the application, see image below: fig 3A is annotated with a circle and two red arrows to show the two halves of the ellipsoid. Fig 2 of Schaefer was flipped 180 degrees to provide the same orientation as applicant’s figure and has likewise been annotated with the circle and two arrows to show the same corresponding structures, including showing the corresponding output surface 104b/blocking layer 34. The ellipsoids are both abutting the optical fiber to the left and as such the structures are for all intents and purposes identical.)
PNG
media_image1.png
418
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
265
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
having:
an input surface (surface adjacent to the blocking layer 34) that is optically coupled to the output surface of the lens and is configured to receive at least a portion of the light exiting the lens;
an output surface configured such that at least a portion of the received light exits the tapered light pipe through the output surface of the tapered light pipe (fig 1, 2); and
a peripheral surface extending between the input surface of the tapered light pipe and the output surface of the tapered light pipe (fig 1, 2),
wherein a location of the output focal point is closer to the output surface of the tapered light pipe than to the input surface of the tapered light pipe (fig 1, 2)”.
For claim 2, Schaefer discloses “The optical system of claim 1, wherein the tapered light pipe is optically coupled to a light guide (fig 2)”.
For claim 3, Schaefer discloses “The optical system of claim 2, wherein the output focal point is positioned at a location within the tapered light pipe such that light diverging from the output focal point exhibits a divergence angle commensurate with a numerical aperture of the light guide (fig 2, 4; 3:7-16)”.
For claim 4, Schaefer discloses “The optical system of claim 2, wherein the tapered light pipe is configured to deliver more than 50% of the received light to the light guide (fig 2, 4; 3:56-57)”.
For claim 5, Schaefer discloses “The optical system of claim 1, further comprising a light guide that is optically coupled to the tapered light pipe and is configured to receive at least a portion of the light exiting the output surface of the tapered light pipe (fig 2; 3:6-16)”.
For claim 6, Schaefer discloses “The optical system of claim 5, wherein the tapered light pipe is configured to deliver more than 50% of the received light to the light guide (fig 2, 4; 3:56-57)”.
For claim 7, Schaefer discloses “The optical system of claim 5, wherein the output focal point is positioned at a location within the tapered light pipe such that light diverging from the output focal point exhibits a divergence angle commensurate with a numerical aperture of the light guide (fig 2, 4; 3:7-16)”.
For claim 8, Schaefer discloses “The optical system of claim 1, wherein the input surface of the tapered light pipe is flat (fig 2)”.
For claim 9, Schaefer discloses “The optical system of claim 1, wherein the output focal point is positioned along an optical axis of the tapered light pipe (fig 2)”.
For claim 10, Schaefer discloses “The optical system of claim 9, wherein a maximum distance xmax of the output focal point relative to the output surface of the tapered light pipe is given by: wherein: Rout denotes a radius of the output surface of the tapered light pipe, and a denotes half of a divergence angle of the light propagating beyond the output focal point (fig 2)”.
For claim 11, Schaefer discloses “The optical system of claim 1, wherein the input surface of the lens comprises a cavity for receiving the light emitted by the at least one light source (fig 2)”.
For claim 12, Schaefer discloses “The optical system of claim 11, wherein at least a portion of the peripheral surface of the lens has an elliptical shape having two focal points including an input focal point positioned in the cavity and the output focal point, such that the output focal point is positioned in the tapered light pipe (fig 2)”.
For claim 13, Schaefer discloses “The optical system of claim 12, wherein at least a portion of a light-emitting surface of the at least one light source is positioned at the input focal point (fig 2)”.
For claim 14, Schaefer discloses “The optical system of claim 1, wherein the tapered light pipe is tapered (fig 2)”.
For claim 15, Schaefer discloses “The optical system of claim 14, wherein the tapered light pipe exhibits a decreasing cross sectional area from the input surface of the tapered light pipe to the output surface of the tapered light pipe (fig 2)”.
For claim 16, Schaefer discloses “The optical system of claim 1, wherein the output focal point is positioned within the tapered light pipe (fig 2)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. US6,124,883.
For claim 17, Schaefer does not disclose “An endoscope, comprising the optical system of claim 1”. Suzuki teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing an endoscope with a tapered light transmitting element (fig 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Suzuki into the invention of Schaefer in order to configure the system of claim 1, e.g. as claimed because it provides the functionality of an endoscope, i.e. imaging within a cavity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Schaefer does not disclose a tapered light pipe, but the right portion of ellipsoid 10 (fig 2) is the same like structure in the applicant’s device (light pipe 108 in fig 3A). It is unclear how applicant is distinguishing between these two clearly analogous elements since the ellipsoid does in fact taper toward the fiber hose in fig 2. The claimed structure in question is the combination of the lens 104 and light pipe 108, each making up half of an ellipsoid. Schaefer in fig 2 shows the same ellipsoid structure composed of two elements, a lens (the left portion of 10) and a light pipe (the right portion of 10), as such they are both considered a prolate spheroid. For example, a prolate spheroid (a type of ellipsoid formed by rotating an ellipse about its major axis) has a shape similar to a football or a rugby ball. This shape can be considered as tapered at its ends compared to the wider middle section. An egg, for instance, is often described as an ellipsoid, and its shape is clearly tapered at one end. As such, applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
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 .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE K WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-0837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-2:30p, 6p-9p.
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.
/Jae Woo/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795 08/27/2025