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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claim language refers to the “optical imaging system positioned proximally of the video imaging system” (claim 1) where the optical imaging system includes the light conductor, mirror, lens, among other components. Applicant states, “Radially extending emitting ends 404 are illustrated as being positioned proximally of imaging sensor 412…imaging sensor 412 can be configured with a field of view, such as in a distal direction for end-viewing, at least some of radially extending emitting ends 404 can be oriented to project light outside of field of view, such as in multiple radial direction proximal of the field of view …” and refers to Figure 8 of the application (Pages 4 and 5 of Remarks). Therefore, as per the Applicant’s Remarks, it’s the radially extending emitting ends 404 that are positioned proximally of imaging sensor and not the “optical imaging system” in its entirety. It is suggested claim language clarify that it’s the radially extending emitting ends of the optical imaging system that are positioned “proximally” of the imaging sensor. With respect to claim 28, it also not clear the positioning of the optical imaging system relative to the video imaging device as the claim does not specify if the optical imaging system is located proximally or distally relative to the video imaging device. Due to lack of clarity with respect to this language, a 112(b) Rejection is set forth below.
Applicant further argues “ the video imaging sensor and optical system of Muller cooperate together to provide one set of images…Muller does not disclose a video imaging device and an optical imaging system that work separately in parallel” (Page 6 of Remarks). However, the language in claims 1 and 28 makes no requirement for the two imaging system to “work separately in parallel” to provide more than one set of images.
In view of the amendments to claims 1-3, 16, and new claims 27-32, an updated search was conducted resulting in the following modified 103 Rejection set forth below.
In view of the amendments to claims 17-25, the previous 103 Rejection is withdrawn.
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 1-3, 11-16, and 27-32 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 recites the “optical imaging system positioned proximally of the video imaging system” where the optical imaging system includes the light conductor, mirror, lens, among other components which are located at various positions along the shaft of the endoscope and relative to the image sensor.
As per the specification, “Radially extending emitting ends 404 are illustrated as being positioned proximally of imaging sensor 412…imaging sensor 412 can be configured with a field of view, such as in a distal direction for end-viewing, at least some of radially extending emitting ends 404 can be oriented to project light outside of field of view, such as in multiple radial direction proximal of the field of view …” (fig. 8, [0073]). Therefore, as per the Specification, it’s the radially extending emitting ends 404 of the optical imaging system that are positioned proximally of imaging sensor and not the “optical imaging system” in its entirety. It is suggested claim language clarify that it’s the radially extending emitting ends of the optical imaging system that are positioned “proximally” of the imaging sensor.
Claim 28 recites the video imaging device located at the distal end and the optical imaging system and its components. It is not clear from the claim language if the optical imaging system is located proximally or distally relative to the video imaging device. Since claim 1 specifically recites the optical imaging system is proximally located relative to the video imaging device such that the light is emitted in a radial direction, it is suggested claim 28 clarify the language with respect to the location of the optical imaging system or more specifically the “radially extending emitting ends” that are positioned proximally of imaging sensor.
The dependent claims do not provide additional clarity and therefore stand rejected under 112(b).
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) 1-3, 16, 27, and 28-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. in view of Irion et al. (2008/0300456).
With respect to claims 1 and 28, Muller et al. teach of a video endoscope 10 with an elongate shaft 14 extending along an axis from a proximal end portion to a distal end portion [0072, 0073, fig. 1], a video imaging device or camera head which is located adjacent to or adjoining the proximal ends of the optical arrangements where at the proximal end of the shaft, the image in a parallel beam path reaches the camera head through light inlet wherein further transparent protective windows 56 are arranged at the proximal end 18 of the shaft and on the light inlet of the camera head [0078]. Muller et al. teach of the image processor being arranged within the video endoscopic device in the camera head [0081]. Muller et al. teach of an optical imaging system where the illumination device contains an optical waveguide 48 which via an illumination-light inlet 50, transmit light from light source 52 in the distal direction along the endoscope shaft 14 which light illuminates the object plane 22 by illumination -light outlet 54 and the light source 52 [0077]. Muller et al. teach of a shaft comprising an imaging cable [0080], light fiber cable [0077], and working channel extending through the shaft [0027]. Muller et al. teach of a cap connected to the elongate structure or the termination cap [0033-0035] and mirror arrangement to receive light emitted from the optical fiber [0052, 0055, 0056].
With respect to claims 1-3, 16, 27, and 28, Muller et al. do not teach of the claimed orientation of the video imaging device relative to the optical imaging system. In a similar field of endeavor PIrion et al. teach of an endoscope comprising an elongate body or shaft 20 with central axis extending from a proximal end portion to a distal end portion [0078, 0080, fig. 1]. Irion et al. teach of a video imaging device or image sensor 32 formed as a CMOS sensor located at the distal end portion including a field of view configured to view distally of the elongate shaft [0085]. As shown in figure 3, the image sensor is located at the distal end or the working part 12. Irion et al. further teach of an optical imaging system including LEDs 75, light exit 72, light entrance 54 arranged at the proximal end of the working part 12 where the light is transmitted from the operating part to the working part of the endoscope [0094, fig. 4] and therefore positioned proximal of the video imaging sensor 32. Irion et al. also teach of the optical fibers 93 arranged in the working part 92 circumferentially extending from the proximal to the distal end of the working part [0106]. Irion et al. also teach of the light being emitted in a radial direction to obtain optical images about a circumference of the elongate shaft outside the field of view of the video imaging device where the LEDs emit light in a radial direction [0108]. Figure 10 shows an embodiment where the LEDs are arranged in the operating part 116 and the imaging sensor 32 (as set forth in figure 3) is located in the distal end of the working part 112 and therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation, the optical imaging system is located proximal of the video imaging sensor. With respect to claim 2, Irion et al. teach of the optical imaging system being configured to emit light in multiple radial directions relative to the axis [0048, 0061, 0108, 0111]. With respect to claims 3 and 27, Irion et al. teach of the optical imaging system to comprise a light conductor or optical fibers 93 arranged in the working part 92 or the operating part 96 in a manner distributed circumferentially with the fibers extending from the proximal as far as the distal end of the working part 92 [0106, 0107] and therefore extending from the distal end portion through the shaft to the controller of the endoscope. With respect to claim 16, Irion et al. teach of the field of view of the video imaging device to comprise a field of view and the optical imaging system a second field of view wherein the second field of view is proximal of the first field of view based on the proximal location of the optical imaging components relative to the image sensor. With respect to claim 28, Irion et al. also teach of shaft to include cables and channels [0036, 0042, 0096, 0102].
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Irion et la. to modify Muller et al. to ensure light is transmitted from the operating part to the working part to ensure proper illumination of the examination space with light [Irion, 0018] with uniform distribution of light circumferentially [0058].
With respect to claim 29, Muller et al. in view of Irion et al. teach of the mirror to be within a lens systems 16 , 26 with lenses 17 and 27 [Muller, 0072-0047].
With respect to claim 30, Muller et al. in view of Irion et al. teach of the mirror to comprise a prism disposed within the lens [Muller, 0055].
With respect to claim 31, Muller et al. in view of Irion et al. teach of the lens system 26 with lens 27 to be disposed distally of the distal end face 20 of the shaft [Muller, 0072, fig. 1].
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. in view of Irion et al. and further in view of Miyamoto et al. (2014/0094657). The previous references do not teach of all the claimed elements. In a related field of endeavor Miyamoto et al. teach of an endoscope with a drive shaft or sleeve 48 [0080 with a pinion gear 53a/b disposed at the end of the drive shaft [0080], with a motor 29a/b connected to the drive shaft to induce rotation of the shaft to induce rotation of the drive shaft [0080], and a ring gear 51a/b coupled to the cap such that rotation of the motor causes the cap 44 to rotate via the drive shaft and pinion gear [0064, 0065]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Miyamoto et al. to modify the previous references to ensure proper conditions or force of propulsion to the tip device for assistance to entry in the body cavity [Miyamoto, 0022].
Allowable Subject Matter
In view of the amendments, claims 17-25 are allowed.
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 BAISAKHI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 EST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
BR
/BAISAKHI ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797