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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to communications filed 11/06/2025 Claims 1 and 16, and 20 are amended. 2-15, 17-19 are original.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application 2022/0395160 Salman et al. (hereinafter Salman) in view of U.S. Patent Application 2005/0267329 Konstorum et al. (hereinafter Konstorum) further in view of 11550402 Heni et al. (hereinafter Heni).
2. Regarding Claim 1, Salman discloses A system (abstract) comprising a camera head (abstract, multi-camera endoscope), the system comprising:
a button (Fig. 7A, activating button 802; par. [0117]);
a sensor configured to output a sensor signal (Fig. 7A, analog magnetic sensor 812; par. [0117]-[0118]); and
a controller configured to identify a value of the sensor signal being greater than a signal threshold, wherein the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold indicates a button press (par. [0117]: “The activating button 802 can be at an “off” state 804 i.e., not interfacing with the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812, or at “on” state 806 i.e., interfacing with the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812, the different between the on-off states is determined based on a difference in height distance between the activating button 802 and the analog magnetic sensor 812 [i.e. value of sensor signal].”, par. [0118]).
Salman’s outer casing 502 is the enclosure of the endoscope handle
However, Salman may not disclose a material that forms the button and an enclosure of the camera head;
a sensor indicating an amount of deflection of the material proximate to the sensor
Konstorum teaches a sensor indicating an amount of deflection of the material proximate to the sensor ([0077], The barrier is a thin sheet metal or polymer adapted to flex under finger pressure. The target is a button or direct finger contact. Finger pressure deforms the thin sheet to allow pressure onto the pressure sensitive sensor. The switch sensor responds to the change in pressure by closing or opening an electrical connection. See also claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetic sensor as taught in Salman with a capacitive sensor as taught in Konstorum to improve detection accuracy, robustness, and reliability of input detection systems. Hence, allowing for enhanced gesture or input recognition.
Konstorum does not explicitly disclose a material that forms the button and an enclosure of the camera head;
Heni teaches a material that forms the button and an enclosure of the camera head (Title: “keypad for video endoscopes” Col. 2 lines 14-17, “the cover is made of a single piece of silicone, and the snap disk is attached to the support via an adhesive tape that is adhesive on both sides.” Claim 10, “the cover is made of a single piece of silicone”);
A POSITA would have been motivated to adopt the unitary cover concept from Heni into the Salman in view Konstorum combination to achieve the known benefits of hermetic/enclosed sealing with reduced complexity, yielding a material that predictably form both the button and the camera head enclosure.
3. Regarding Claim 2, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The system of claim 1,
Salman discloses in para [0014], a magnetic sensor
However, Salman does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is an inductive sensor, a capacitive sensor, Or a piezo sensor
Konstorum teaches wherein the sensor is an inductive sensor (claimed in the alternative), a capacitive sensor ([0027]-[0029], In another embodiment of the keypad, the sensor is a capacitive sensor circuit), Or a piezo sensor (Claimed in the alternative)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetic sensor as taught in Salman with a capacitive sensor as taught in Konstorum to improve detection accuracy, robustness, and reliability of input detection systems. Hence, allowing for enhanced gesture or input recognition.
4. Regarding Claim 3, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The system of claim 1,
Salman discloses wherein the controller is further configured to:
register the button press in accordance with the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold (par. [0095]: “In some embodiments, the data signal may include such data as, but not limited to: data related to the operation of the endoscope (such as, activating buttons’ status, internal registers). Par. [0118], “when the activating button 802 is pressed (in the direction of arrow 808), for example, by a user, activating button 802 changes its position from “on” position at state 804 to “off” position at state 806 such, the height/distance difference 810 between the lower (magnetic) surface of the activating button 802 and the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812 is changed).
5. Regarding Claim 5, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The system of claim 1,
Salman discloses wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine a position of the button based on the sensor signal, wherein the position of the button comprises an initial position (applicant’s spec [0105] and [0108], “not pushing the button at all”) and a final position ([0118], when the activating button 802 is pressed (in the direction of arrow 808); and
wherein the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold occurs in accordance with the button being between the initial position and the final position (Figs. 7A, 7B; [0117], the difference between the on-off states is determined based on a difference in height/distance between the activating button 802 and the analog magnetic sensor 812. [0118], when the activating button 802 is pressed (in the direction of arrow 808), by a user, activating button 802 changes its position from “on” position at state 804 to “off” position at state 806 such, the height/distance difference 810 between the lower (magnetic) surface of the activating button 802 and the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812 is changed, such as to be decreased/reduced… the height difference may be in the range of about 0.1-0.9 mm…the distance between the lower surface of the external activating button and the internal sensor at an “off state” may be in the range of about 1-9 mm. [0121], when the external button is pressed, a change in voltage (i.e., a delta/change in voltage) is detected by the corresponding sensor.).
6. Regarding Claim 6, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The system of claim 1,
Salman discloses wherein the controller is further configured to:
identify a second value of the sensor signal being less than a second signal threshold,
wherein the second value of the sensor signal being less than the second signal threshold indicates a button release ([0119], activating button 802 returns to “off” state 804. the activating button 802 stays “on” at state 806 as long as the user presses activating button 802. Examiner notes that the activating button returns to off state once the user releases the button 802).
7. Regarding Claim 8, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The system of claim 1,
Salman discloses wherein the controller is further configured to:
identify a second value of the sensor signal being less than a second signal threshold; and
register the button press as a long press in accordance with a duration being longer than a long press duration threshold ([0119], activating button 802 returns to “off” state 804. the activating button 802 stays “on” at state 806 as long as the user presses activating button 802), wherein the duration is between the identification of the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold ([0118], when the activating button 802 is pressed (in the direction of arrow 808) and the identification of the second value of the sensor signal being less than the second signal threshold ([0119], activating button 802 returns to “off” state 804. the activating button 802 stays “on” at state 806 as long as the user presses activating button 802. Examiner notes that the activating button returns to off state once the user releases the button 802)
8. Regarding Claim 9, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising:
Salman discloses a plurality of buttons (Fig 1A: 52C 52B 52A), wherein each of the plurality of buttons is associated with one or more of: a unique sensor signal and a unique signal threshold ([0109], on the lower surface of the activating buttons 604A-C (i.e., the surface that faces the internal activating element/unit 603), magnets, (such as, magnets 605A-C) are placed/located. Magnets are a portion of the lower surface of the external activating buttons 604A-C, is magnetized or has magnetic properties. The sensors 606 of the internal activating element 603 can interface with the external activating buttons 604, to exert operating commands from the external activating buttons to the internal space of the handle, via the sensors, to allow control and operation of the handle 600 and hence of the endoscope. The sensors 606 are magnetic sensors, interacting/interfacing with the magnet (or magnetized region) of the external activating buttons 604. In some embodiments, the sensors 606 are linear sensors. In some embodiments, the sensors 606 are analog sensors).
9. Regarding Claim 16, Salman discloses A method of detecting a button press of a button on a camera head (abstract, multi-camera endoscope), the method comprising:
receiving a sensor signal from a sensor (Fig. 7A, analog magnetic sensor 812; par. [0117]-[0118]);
identifying a value of the sensor signal being greater than a signal threshold, wherein
the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold indicates the button press (par. [0117]: “The activating button 802 can be at an “off” state 804 i.e., not interfacing with the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812, or at “on” state 806 i.e., interfacing with the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812, the different between the on-off states is determined based on a difference in height distance between the activating button 802 and the analog magnetic sensor 812 [i.e. value of sensor signal].”, par. [0118]); and
registering the button press in accordance with the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold (par. [0095]: “In some embodiments, the data signal may include such data as, but not limited to: data related to the operation of the endoscope (such as, activating buttons’ status, internal registers). Par. [0118], “when the activating button 802 is pressed (in the direction of arrow 808), for example, by a user, activating button 802 changes its position from “on” position at state 804 to “off” position at state 806 such, the height/distance difference 810 between the lower (magnetic) surface of the activating button 802 and the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812 is changed).
Salman’s outer casing 502 is the enclosure of the endoscope handle
However, Salman does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor signal indicates an amount of deflection of a material proximate to the sensor, wherein the material forms the button and an enclosure of the camera head;
Konstorum teaches wherein the sensor signal indicates an amount of deflection of a material proximate to the sensor ([0077], The barrier is a thin sheet metal or polymer adapted to flex under finger pressure. The target is a button or direct finger contact. Finger pressure deforms the thin sheet to allow pressure onto the pressure sensitive sensor. The switch sensor responds to the change in pressure by closing or opening an electrical connection. See also claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetic sensor as taught in Salman with a capacitive sensor as taught in Konstorum to improve detection accuracy, robustness, and reliability of input detection systems. Hence, allowing for enhanced gesture or input recognition.
Konstorum does not explicitly disclose wherein the material forms the button and an enclosure of the camera head;
Heni teaches wherein the material forms the button and an enclosure of the camera head; (Title: “keypad for video endoscopes” Col. 2 lines 14-17, “the cover is made of a single piece of silicone, and the snap disk is attached to the support via an adhesive tape that is adhesive on both sides.” Claim 10, “the cover is made of a single piece of silicone”);
A POSITA would have been motivated to adopt the unitary cover concept from Heni into the Salman in view Konstorum combination to achieve the known benefits of hermetic/enclosed sealing with reduced complexity, yielding a material that predictably form both the button and the camera head enclosure.
10. Regarding Claim 17, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The method of claim 16,
Konstorum teaches wherein the amount of deflection of the material ([0077], The barrier is a thin sheet metal or polymer adapted to flex under finger pressure. The target is a button or direct finger contact. Finger pressure deforms the thin sheet to allow pressure onto the pressure sensitive sensor. The switch sensor responds to the change in pressure by closing or opening an electrical connection. See also claim 20) is associated with one or more of:
a strength of an electromagnetic field of the sensor (claimed in the alternative), an amount of capacitive coupling ([0027]-[0029], In another embodiment of the keypad, the sensor is a capacitive sensor circuit), and an amount of stretching of the sensor (claimed in the alternative).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetic sensor as taught in Salman with a capacitive sensor as taught in Konstorum to improve detection accuracy, robustness, and reliability of input detection systems. Hence, allowing for enhanced gesture or input recognition.
11. Regarding Claim 19, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The method of claim 16,
Salman discloses further comprising:
determining a position of the button based on the sensor signal, wherein the position of the button comprises an initial position (applicant’s spec [0105] and [0108], “not pushing the button at all”) and a final position ([0118], when the activating button 802 is pressed (in the direction of arrow 808); and
wherein the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold occurs in accordance with the button being between the initial position and the final position ([0117], the difference between the on-off states is determined based on a difference in height/distance between the activating button 802 and the analog magnetic sensor 812).
12. Regarding Claim 20, Salman discloses An apparatus (abstract) comprising:
a button (Fig. 7A, activating button 802; par. [0117]);
a sensor configured to output a sensor signal (analog magnetic sensor 812; par. [0117]-[0118]); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding instructions which, when executed by a processor ([0221], a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium), cause the processor to:
identify a value of the sensor signal being greater than a signal threshold, wherein the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold indicates a button press ((par. [0117]: “The activating button 802 can be at an “off” state 804 i.e., not interfacing with the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812, or at “on” state 806 i.e., interfacing with the corresponding analog magnetic sensor 812, the different between the on-off states is determined based on a difference in height distance between the activating button 802 and the analog magnetic sensor 812 [i.e. value of sensor signal].”, par. [0118]).
Salman’s outer casing 502 is the enclosure of the endoscope handle
However, Salman may not disclose a material that forms the button and an enclosure of a camera head;
a sensor indicating an amount of deflection of the material proximate to the sensor
Konstorum teaches a sensor indicating an amount of deflection of the material proximate to the sensor ([0077], The barrier is a thin sheet metal or polymer adapted to flex under finger pressure. The target is a button or direct finger contact. Finger pressure deforms the thin sheet to allow pressure onto the pressure sensitive sensor. The switch sensor responds to the change in pressure by closing or opening an electrical connection. See also claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetic sensor as taught in Salman with a capacitive sensor as taught in Konstorum to improve detection accuracy, robustness, and reliability of input detection systems. Hence, allowing for enhanced gesture or input recognition.
Konstorum does not explicitly disclose a material that forms the button and an enclosure of the camera head;
Heni teaches a material that forms the button and an enclosure of the camera head (Title: “keypad for video endoscopes” Col. 2 lines 14-17, “the cover is made of a single piece of silicone, and the snap disk is attached to the support via an adhesive tape that is adhesive on both sides.” Claim 10, “the cover is made of a single piece of silicone”);
A POSITA would have been motivated to adopt the unitary cover concept from Heni into the Salman in view Konstorum combination to achieve the known benefits of hermetic/enclosed sealing with reduced complexity, yielding a material that predictably form both the button and the camera head enclosure.
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.
13. Claim(s) 4, 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni as applied to claim 1 and 16 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 8194890, Konanka et al. (hereinafter Konanka).
14. Regarding Claim 4, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The system of claim 1,
Salman discloses register the button press in accordance with an elapsed time of the timer being greater than a time threshold (para. [0101], [0117], [0118]).
However, Salman in view of Konstorum does no explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to:
start a timer in accordance with the identification of the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold;
Konanka teaches start a timer in accordance with the identification of the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold (Fig. 2; Col. 4 lines 53-64, “Process 200 can begin at step 202. At step 204, the electronic device can determine whether a volume timer has passed a threshold. For example, the electronic device can determine whether a secondary button associated with a volume control is in a pressed state (e.g., secondary button is down) and has been down for a duration that exceeded a predetermined value (e.g., a value in the range of 200 ms to 800 ms, such as 500 ms). The electronic device can determine the duration for which a secondary button was pressed by comparing the current time with a time stamp stored when the secondary button press was initially detected.”);
A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the time-threshold based button press registration as taught in Konanka into Salman in view of Konstorum combination to prevent false positives from transient deflections that momentarily exceed the signal threshold. Distinguish intentional presses from incidental contact.
15. Regarding Claim 7, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to:
Salman discloses identify a second value of the sensor signal being less than a second signal threshold ([0119], activating button 802 returns to “off” state 804. the activating button 802 stays “on” at state 806 as long as the user presses activating button 802. Examiner notes that the activating button returns to off state once the user releases the button 802); and
However, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni does not explicitly disclose register the button press as a short press in accordance with a duration being shorter than a short press duration threshold,
wherein the duration is between the identification of the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold and the identification of the second value of the sensor signal being less than the second signal threshold.
Konanka teaches register the button press as a short press in accordance with a duration being shorter than a short press duration threshold,
wherein the duration is between the identification of the value of the sensor signal being greater than the signal threshold and the identification of the second value of the sensor signal being less than the second signal threshold (Col. 4 lines 56-60, “the electronic device can determine whether a secondary button associated with a volume control is in a pressed state (e.g., secondary button is down) and has been down for a duration that exceeded a predetermined value (e.g., a value in the range of 200 ms to 800 ms, such as 500 ms.” Col. 4 lines64-66, “If the electronic device determines that the volume timer has passed a threshold, process 200 can move to step 206.” Fig. 2, steps 204->206: volume timer threshold check leads to ramp volume, distinguishing short press events from long hold events based on duration relative to a threshold. Col. 5 lines 9-13, “If the electronic device determines that the volume timer has passed a threshold, process 200 can move to step 206.” Col. 5 lines 54-57, “At step 216, the electronic device can determine whether a short event caused by an input on the primary button is detected.” The short event being defined by the duration between button press identification and button release identification being shorter than the timeout/threshold duration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor-based button detection system of Salman as modified by Konstorum to incorporate Konanka’s short press duration classification, registering the button press as short press when the duration between signal threshold exceedance and signal release falls below a short press duration threshold to improve detection accuracy, and reliability of input detection systems. Hence, allowing for enhanced gesture or input recognition.
16. Claim 18 is a method claim objected with respect to the same limitations objected in system claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 10, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni does no explicitly disclose wherein the system comprises a first button associated with a first sensor signal and a second button associated with a second sensor signal, wherein the controller further is configured to:
compare the first sensor signal to the signal threshold;
compare the second sensor signal to a signal threshold; and
determine whether the button press corresponds to the first button, the second button, or a multi-button press based on the comparisons.
Regarding Claim 11, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni does no explicitly disclose wherein the system comprises a first button associated with a first sensor signal and a second button associated with a second sensor signal, wherein the controller further is configured to:
compare the first sensor signal to the signal threshold;
compare the second sensor signal to a second signal threshold; and
determine whether the button press corresponds to the first button, the second button, or a multi-button press based on the comparisons.
Regarding Claim 12, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni does no explicitly disclose wherein the amount of deflection is between 5-200 microns.
Regarding Claim 13, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni does no explicitly disclose wherein the material comprises one or more raised features or one or more recessed features corresponding to one or more buttons, and
wherein a thickness of the material at locations of the one or more raised features or the one or more recessed features is greater than a thickness of the material at locations of non-raised features or non-recessed features.
Regarding Claim 14, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising:
However, Salman in view of Konstorum does no explicitly disclose a keypad comprising a plurality of buttons located on a plurality of planes, wherein the plurality of planes comprises different planes that form a geodesic dome ([0118]).
Regarding Claim 15, Salman in view of Konstorum further in view of Heni discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Salman in view of Konstorum does no explicitly further in view of Heni disclose wherein the button is associated with a first time threshold, the system further comprising:
a side button associated with a second time threshold, wherein the second time threshold is longer than the first time threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER KHALID whose telephone number is (571)270-5997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9am-7pm.
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, John Miller can be reached at (571) 272-7353. 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.
/OMER KHALID/Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights