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 .
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 “configured to provide the infrared ray that is emitted from the second light source with guidance toward the sample” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The Drawings show lighting part 220, but this is not an optical fiber. The Examiner also notes that it is not entirely clear how this could be an optical fiber. Perhaps multiple fibers could be used to surround the multimode fibers, but this is not shown. 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 1-11 are 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 1 states “a first light source configured to emit an infrared ray”, “a second light source configured to emit visible light” and “an optical fiber configured to provide the infrared ray that is emitted from the second light source”. This is indefinite because the infrared ray is emitted from the first light source, not the second. The second source is configured to emit visible light and not infrared light. The claim, therefore, is unclear as to where this infrared ray is being emitted, the first light source or the second. The Examiner assumes the optical fiber is configured to provide the visible light emitted from the second light source. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP 2017-225755; English Translation provided) in view of Gill et al. (US 2007/0167681) and Wright et al. (US 2011/0184243).
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki discloses:
A multi-spectrum endoscope comprising:
a first light source (K2/K3) configured to emit an infrared ray having a plurality of wavelengths (see Paragraph 0022);
a plurality of multi-mode optical fibers (53/54) configured to provide an infrared ray that is emitted from the first light source with guidance toward a sample (shown in Fig. 2);
a second light source (K1) configured to emit visible light (see Paragraph 0022);
an optical fiber (51) configured to provide the infrared ray that is emitted from the second light source with guidance toward the sample (see Paragraph 0028 and Fig. 2);
a lens part (40) configured to receive a fluorescent signal that is emitted from the sample and a visible light signal that is reflected by the sample (see Paragraph 0018); and
an imaging unit in which the light incident from the lens is received (see Paragraphs 0011, 0018, 0021-0028, and 0030, and Fig. 2).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose an optical fiber bundle configured to provide at least one of the fluorescent signal and the visible light signal that are received through the lens part with guidance toward a multi-spectrum light detection device, wherein the optical fiber bundle is disposed to be surrounded by the plurality of multi-mode optical fibers, and an end part of the multi-spectrum endoscope from which the visible light is emitted surrounds at least some of the plurality of multi-mode optical fibers.
Gill teaches using an optical fiber bundle (26) to receive an image for multispectral imaging (Paragraph 0096). The Examiner also notes that multimode fibers are well-known in the art. While Suzuki places the sensor at the distal end of the device, using fibers to transmit the image back to a proximal sensor is a well-known alternative. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki’s device to have Gill’s fiber bundle. Such a modification is the simple substitution of one known image acquisition and transmission means for another without a change in function.
Wright teaches placing illumination means around the central image acquisition portion (see Fig. 5B showing 214/216/218). These illumination means can include visible and infrared light (see Paragraphs 0029 and 0054-0056). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki’s illumination to have Wright’s configuration. Such a modification provides a means for directing light with varying wavelengths to a target to view objects not necessarily observable under visible light along.
Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki as modified further discloses wherein the first light source is a wavelength-variable light source, a multi-wavelength light source, or a multi-array light source, and emits light having a different wavelength over time (see Suzuki Paragraph 0027 and Figs. 10-11).
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki as modified further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of multi-mode optical fibers outputs a beam between 200 nm to 450 nm, a beam between 510 nm to 550 nm, a near-infrared ray between 790 nm to 980 nm, or a near-infrared ray between 1044 nm to 1084 nm (see Suzuki Paragraphs 0025 and 0028).
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki as modified further discloses wherein an end part of each of the plurality of multi-mode optical fibers from which the first light source is emitted comprises a homogenizer or a diffuser (see Suzuki, diffusion plate 58).
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki as modified further discloses:
An endoscope system comprising:
a multi-spectrum endoscope according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above);
a multi-spectrum light detection device (see Suzuki 21) configured to detect at least one of a fluorescent signal that is radiated from the multi-spectrum endoscope to a sample and that is then emitted from the sample and a visible light signal that is reflected by the sample (see Suzuki 66, processing unit)(the Examiner also notes that both Gill and Wright detect light from both the visible and fluorescent wavelength ranges); and
a control device configured to synchronize the multi-spectrum endoscope and the multi-spectrum light detection device (see Suzuki which includes a timing control unit 69 that is part of control unit 47 to synchronize the scope).
Regarding Claim 9, Suzuki as modified further discloses wherein the multi-spectrum light detection device comprises: a wavelength separator configured to separate the fluorescent signal and the visible light signal (see Suzuki film 89); a band rejection filter disposed between the sample and the wavelength separator (see Gill Paragraph 0131 discussing filters 407); an infrared image detection unit configured to detect the fluorescent signal; and a visible light image detection unit configured to detect the visible light signal (see Gill Paragraph 0131 discussing image sensors for infrared and visible imaging; see also Wright Paragraph 0072 indicating that multiple detectors can be used).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP 2017-225755; English Translation provided), Gill et al. (US 2007/0167681) and Wright et al. (US 2011/0184243), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oosake et al. (WO 2019239854; English Translation provided).
Suzuki, Gill, and Wright disclose the invention substantially as claimed as stated above.
Regarding Claim 2, they do not explicitly disclose a coupler configured to separate the infrared ray having the plurality of wavelengths into individual infrared rays having different wavelengths or having pieces of different predetermined power. Oosake teaches using a demultiplexer (55) to separate laser light. The Examiner notes that such demultiplexers or other means for separating wavelengths are well-known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki’s device to include Oosake’s coupler. Such a modification incorporates a well-known component into an existing device to separate light into individual rays as is known in the art.
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki as modified further discloses wherein the coupler transmits at least one of the fluorescent signal and the visible light signal toward the light detection device (see Suzuki, Gill, and Wright discussing both visible and fluorescent imaging; at least on of either the fluorescent or visible light needs to reach the light detection device to form those images).
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki as modified further discloses wherein each of the plurality of multi-mode optical fibers outputs the individual infrared ray separated by the coupler by providing the individual infrared ray with guidance toward the sample (see Oosake with optical fibers 57A/57B for transmitting the individual, separated rays).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP 2017-225755; English Translation provided), Gill et al. (US 2007/0167681), Wright et al. (US 2011/0184243), and Oosake et al. (WO 2019239854), as applied to claims 1 and 8-9 above, and further in view of Zeng et al. (US 2013/0012794).
Suzuki, Gill, Wright, and Oosake disclose the invention substantially as claimed as stated above.
Regarding Claim 10, they do not explicitly disclose wherein: the infrared image detection unit comprises an infrared image sensor, an infrared object lens, and a wheel filter, the visible light image detection unit comprises a visible light image sensor and a visible light object lens, and the wheel filter is disposed between the wavelength separator and the infrared image sensor or between the wavelength separator and the band rejection filter. Zeng teaches using a wheel filter for simultaneous illumination in multiple narrow-bands of different spectral at different times (see Paragraphs 0047, 0067, and 0077-0079). The Examiner also notes that components such as image sensors, lenses, and wheel filters are known in the art (see rejection of claim 9, for example, indicating that the references include sensors and lenses). Furthermore, using a lens to focus light is well-known in the art such that using one to focus light on the sensor would be obvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki’s device to include Zeng’s wheel filter. Such a modification provides a means for having a variety of wavelengths by means of a wheel filter as is known in the art.
Regarding Claim 11, Suzuki as modified further discloses wherein the control device synchronizes a time between the first light source and the infrared image sensor and a wavelength of light corresponding to the time, synchronizes a time between the first light source and the wheel filter and a wavelength of light corresponding to the time, and synchronizes a time between the wheel filter and the infrared image sensor and a wavelength of light corresponding to the time (see Suzuki which includes a timing control unit 69 that is part of control unit 47 to synchronize the scope). The Examiner also notes that synchronization is at least obvious so that the lighting and imaging are coordinated to acquire the desired image. It wouldn’t make sense to have unsynchronized imaging where the various wavelengths are not timed up with the sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY JAY NEAL whose telephone number is (313)446-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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.
/TIMOTHY J NEAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights