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 § 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, 4, 6-7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama et al. (US PGPUB 20080086029 – “Uchiyama”) in view of Kadziauskas et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0092921 – “Kadziauskas”).
Regarding Claim 1, Uchiyama discloses:
A medical imaging system (Uchiyama FIG. 6, endoscope system 1) comprising:
a patient interface (Uchiyama FIG. 6; motor box 16 and motor driver 67);
a console (Uchiyama FIG. 6, control device 3) in communication with the patient interface and including a power supply module (Uchiyama FIG. 6, rotation control unit 66) for supplying power to the patient interface (Uchiyama paragraph [0142], “rotation control unit 66 determines the present state as a limit excess state, and stops supplying electric power to the motor 59”), an imaging engine (Uchiyama FIG. 6, image processing unit 68)), and a display (Uchiyama FIG. 6, monitor 4),
wherein the patient interface comprises:
at least one of a rotational motor (Uchiyama FIG. 6, motor 59) and/or a translational motor; and
at least one driver (Uchiyama FIG. 6, motor driver 67) for operating the rotational motor and/or translation motor (Uchiyama paragraph [0095], “rotation control unit 66 controls the driving operation of the motor driver 67”).
Uchiyama does not explicitly disclose wherein the power supply module is configured with a first power threshold which is restricted to fifteen or more watts of power for under sixty seconds.
Kadziauskas teaches wherein the power supply module (Kadziauskas FIG. 1, control unit 12; Kadziauskas paragraph [0053], “control unit 12 supplies power on line 32 to a phacoemulsification handpiece/needle 30”) is configured with a first power threshold which is restricted to fifteen or more watts of power for under sixty seconds (Kadziauskas FIG. 21, second period 2101; Kadziauskas paragraph [0125], “second period 2102 represents power delivered at 15 watts for a period of 2 ms”).
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 Kadziauskas’ stepped power with the medical imaging system disclosed by Uchiyama. 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 medical imaging system to control components of the (see also Kadziauskas FIGs. 22a-f and Kadziauskas paragraph [0126]).
Regarding Claim 2, Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Uchiyama further discloses a catheter (Uchiyama FIG. 1, rotary tubular member 51) in communication with the patient interface unit (Uchiyama FIG. 1; motor box 16; Uchiyama paragraph [0091], “motor box 16 of the endoscope 2 includes therein the motor 59 for rotating the rotary tubular member 51”).
Regarding Claim 4, Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Kadziauskas further teaches wherein the power supply module is configured with a second power threshold (Kadziauskas FIG. 21, initial energy period 2101) which is greater than the first power threshold (Kadziauskas FIG. 21, second energy period 2102; Kadziauskas paragraph [0125], “modulated pulse delivering initial power by an initial energy period 2101 at 30 watts”), and wherein the power supply module is restricted once the second power threshold is exceeded for a specific duration of time (Kadziauskas FIG. 21, showing power dropping down to 15 watts at time 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Uchiyama discloses:
A medical imaging apparatus (Uchiyama FIG. 6, endoscope system 1) comprising:
a patient interface (Uchiyama FIG. 6; motor box 16 and motor driver 67);
a console (Uchiyama FIG. 6, control device 3) in communication with the patient interface and including a power supply module (Uchiyama FIG. 6, rotation control unit 66) for supplying power to the patient interface (Uchiyama paragraph [0142], “rotation control unit 66 determines the present state as a limit excess state, and stops supplying electric power to the motor 59”), an imaging engine (Uchiyama FIG. 6, image processing unit 68), and a display (Uchiyama FIG. 6, monitor 4),
wherein the patient interface comprises:
at least one of a rotational motor (Uchiyama FIG. 6, motor 59) and/or a translational motor; and
at least one driver (Uchiyama FIG. 6, motor driver 67) for operating the rotational motor and/or translation motor (Uchiyama paragraph [0095], “rotation control unit 66 controls the driving operation of the motor driver 67”).
Uchiyama does not explicitly disclose wherein the power supply module is configured with a first power threshold.
Kadziauskas teaches wherein the power supply module (Kadziauskas FIG. 1, control unit 12; Kadziauskas paragraph [0053], “control unit 12 supplies power on line 32 to a phacoemulsification handpiece/needle 30”) is configured with a first power threshold (Kadziauskas FIG. 21, second period 2101; Kadziauskas paragraph [0125], “second period 2102 represents power delivered at 15 watts for a period of 2 ms”).
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 Kadziauskas’ stepped power with the medical imaging system disclosed by Uchiyama. 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 medical imaging system to control components of the (see also Kadziauskas FIGs. 22a-f and Kadziauskas paragraph [0126]).
Regarding Claim 7, Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas teaches the features of Claim 6, as described above.
Kadziauskas further teaches wherein the first power threshold (Kadziauskas FIG. 21, wattage at second prior 2102) is restricted to less than sixteen watts of power (Kadziauskas paragraph [0125], “second period 2102 represents power delivered at 15 watts”).
Regarding Claim 9, Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas teaches the features of Claim 6, as described above.
Uchiyama further discloses a catheter (Uchiyama FIG. 1, rotary tubular member 51) in communication with the patient interface unit (Uchiyama FIG. 1; motor box 16; Uchiyama paragraph [0091], “motor box 16 of the endoscope 2 includes therein the motor 59 for rotating the rotary tubular member 51”).
Regarding Claim 11, Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas teaches the features of Claim 6, as described above.
Kadziauskas further teaches wherein the power supply module is configured with a second power threshold (Kadziauskas FIG. 21, initial energy period 2101) which is greater than the first power threshold (Kadziauskas FIG. 21, second energy period 2102; Kadziauskas paragraph [0125], “modulated pulse delivering initial power by an initial energy period 2101 at 30 watts”), and wherein the power supply module is restricted once the second power threshold is exceeded for a specific duration of time (Kadziauskas FIG. 21, showing power dropping down to 15 watts at time 4).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama et al. (US PGPUB 20080086029 – “Uchiyama”) in view of Kadziauskas et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0092921 – “Kadziauskas”) and Elmaanaoui et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0350846 – “Elmaanaoui”).
Regarding Claim 3, Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas teaches the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas does not explicitly teach wherein the patient interface further comprises a fiber optic rotary joint.
Elmaanaoui teaches wherein the patient interface (Elmaanaoui FIG. 2, patient interface unit 1130) further comprises a fiber optic rotary joint (Elmaanaoui FIG. fiber optic rotary joint 1200).
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 Elmaanaoui’s fiber optic rotary joint with the medical imaging system taught by Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas. 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 medical imaging system that is capable of using fiber optics within a rotating catheter (see Elmaanaoui paragraph [0049]).
Regarding Claim 10, Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas teaches the features of Claim 6, as described above.
Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas does not explicitly teach wherein the patient interface further comprises a fiber optic rotary joint.
Elmaanaoui teaches wherein the patient interface (Elmaanaoui FIG. 2, patient interface unit 1130) further comprises a fiber optic rotary joint (Elmaanaoui FIG. fiber optic rotary joint 1200).
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 Elmaanaoui’s fiber optic rotary joint with the medical imaging system taught by Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas. 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 medical imaging system that is capable of using fiber optics within a rotating catheter (see Elmaanaoui paragraph [0049]).
Claims 5, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama et al. (US PGPUB 20080086029 – “Uchiyama”) in view of Kadziauskas et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0092921 – “Kadziauskas”) and Devries et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0249445 – “Devries”).
Regarding Claim 5, Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas teaches the features of Claim 4, as described above.
Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas does not explicitly teach wherein the specific duration of time is more than one minute.
Devries teaches wherein the specific duration of time is more than one minute (Devries paragraph [0209], “power-saving techniques can be based on a time schedule (for example, cycling between being powered on for about one minute and being powered off for about four minutes)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Devries’ power-saving technique into the medical imaging system taught by Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas. 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 medical imaging system that uses less power, in order to reduce operating costs.
Regarding Claim 8, Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas teaches the features of Claim 6, as described above.
Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas does not explicitly teach wherein the first power threshold is utilized after a duration of time for supplying power to the imaging engine is more than one minute.
Devries teaches wherein the first power threshold is utilized after a duration of time for supplying power to the imaging engine is more than one minute (Devries paragraph [0209], “power-saving techniques can be based on a time schedule (for example, cycling between being powered on for about one minute and being powered off for about four minutes)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Devries’ power-saving technique into the medical imaging system taught by Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas. 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 medical imaging system that uses less power, in order to reduce operating costs.
Regarding Claim 12, Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas teaches the features of Claim 11, as described above.
Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas does not explicitly teach wherein the specific duration of time is more than one minute.
Devries teaches wherein the specific duration of time is more than one minute (Devries paragraph [0209], “power-saving techniques can be based on a time schedule (for example, cycling between being powered on for about one minute and being powered off for about four minutes)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Devries’ power-saving technique into the medical imaging system taught by Uchiyama in view of Kadziauskas. 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 medical imaging system that uses less power, in order to reduce operating costs.
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
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
1/28/26