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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout the specification, the applicant refers to the first lens as a meniscus lens 304a, further describing the meniscus lens 304a as one surface having a planar shape/surface and the other surface having a spherical or aspherical shape/surface [0008, 0026]. While applicant’s description of the meniscus lens 304a matches applicant’s drawings of lens 304a in Figs. 3A-5D, applicant’s description does not match the known definition of a meniscus lens. A meniscus lens of known in the art to be an optical lens that has two spherical surfaces, one being convex and one being concave. Applicant’s drawings and description of the lens 304a appears to describe a planoconcave lens.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
There appears to be a redundant “and” between lines 3 and 4. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3, 4, and 20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “meniscus lens” in claim 4 is used by the claim to mean “lens with two surfaces, one surface having a planar shape, and the other surface has a spherical or aspherical shape,” [specification: 0008, 0026] while the accepted meaning is “optical lens that has two spherical surfaces, one being convex and one being concave”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Applicant’s definition of meniscus appears to more closely resemble the definition of a planoconcave lens. Since the applicant’s drawings support a lens with a planar surface and a spherical surface, and the description of lens 304a in applicant’s specification points to that definition, the examiner is interpreting lens 304a to be what is commonly known as a planoconcave lens.
The term “far away” in claims 3 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “far away” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The distance between the anti-fogging coating formed on a first surface and the second lens of claim 3 is rendered indefinite. The distance between the anti-reflecting coating formed on a surface and the first lens of claim 20 is rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Mizusawa (US2017/0235132).
Regarding claim 1, Mizusawa discloses a dual view endoscope (wide angle optical system intended for endoscope [0054]), comprising:
an image sensor (image pickup element on the right side of cover glass C2 [0141, 0166, 0187]); and
a functional module disposed in front of said image sensor (Fig 1A: lens module, comprising lens groups G1 and G2, is disposed distally in front of image pickup element which is on the right side of cover glass C2 [0141]), said functional module including at least a first lens (negative lens L1) and a second lens (catadioptric optical element L3) attached to said first lens, said second lens being located between said first lens and said image sensor (Fig. 1A: optical element L3 is between the negative lens L1 and the image pickup element, which is on the right side of cover glass C2);
wherein said first lens is configured to expand field of view of said image sensor (negative lens L1 is a planoconcave negative lens [0184] comprising negative refractive power, therefore configured to expand the field of view of the image pickup element), said second lens being configured to collect light rays from lateral directions and deflect said light rays into said image sensor (Fig. 1A & 1B: optical element L3 collects light beams in the second optical path OP2 by reflecting or transmitting the light beams through or off of surfaces R3T, R2R, R1R and R2T [0073], OP2 are light rays from a lateral direction);
wherein said image sensor and said functional module are aligned with an axial direction of said dual view endoscope (image pickup surface of the image pickup element is positioned on the image side surface of cover glass C2 [0141], image pickup element is aligned with cover glass C2, cover glass C2 is aligned with lens groups G1 and G2).
Regarding claim 2, Mizusawa discloses the endoscope of claim 1. Mizusawa further teaches wherein a lens module is disposed between said functional module (Fig. 1A & 1B: lens group G3, forming the lens module, is disposed between the functional module, comprised of lens groups G1 and G2) and said image sensor to collect said light rays from a forward-viewing direction of said dual view endoscope (an image of the object in front and an image of the object on a side are formed on an image-side surface of the cover glass C2, the images are picked up by the image pickup element from the image pickup surface [0141]).
Regarding claim 4, Mizusawa discloses the endoscope of claim 2, further disclosing wherein said first lens is a meniscus lens (although the applicant has claimed the first lens to be an meniscus lens, examiner is interpreting applicant’s first lens to be a planoconcave lens, reasons for this assumption have been explained in further detail in the above 112(b) rejection; In Mizusawa, negative lens L1, analogous to applicant’s first lens, is planoconcave, wherein an object side, the distal side, is a flat surface [0138]), wherein said first lens includes a spherical or aspherical shape on one side that is placed adjacent to said second lens (Fig. 1A: proximal side of planoconcave [0138] negative lens L1, adjacent to the optical element L3, appear to be spherical).
Regarding claim 5, Mizusawa discloses the endoscope of claim 2, further disclosing wherein said first lens includes a negative refractive power (negative lens L1 is a planoconcave negative lens [0184] comprising negative refractive power).
Regarding claim 8, Mizusawa discloses the endoscope of claim 2, further disclosing wherein said second lens is a freeform lens (Annotated Fig. 1A: distal surface region is a planar surface on one side of the lens, the opposite side, the proximal side of L3 is comprised of an aspherical surface), wherein said second lens is rotational symmetric to its optical axis (Annotated Fig. 1A: optical element L3 appears to be rotationally symmetrical to the optical axis) and consists three surface regions being placed adjacent to said first lens (Annotated Fig. 1A: three surface regions on the distal, left surface of L3), each surface region of said second lens having a radius of curvature (although the annotated central surface region appears to comprise a very slight curve based on the drawing, the examiner will interpret that surface of the central surface region to be flat – thus having an infinite radius of curvature; the annotated distal surface region and circumferential region have infinite radii of curvature).
PNG
media_image1.png
667
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Mizusawa discloses the endoscope of claim 8, further disclosing wherein said surface regions of said second lens includes: a central surface region located on a central portion of said second lens; a distal surface region extended from said central surface region; and a circumferential region located on an outer edge of said second lens and enclosed said distal surface region and said central surface region (Annotated Fig. 1A attached to claim 8: distal surface region, central surface region and circumferential region are annotated above).
Regarding claim 10, Mizusawa discloses the endoscope of claim 9, further disclosing wherein said light rays entered said first lens and passed said central surface region are imaged onto a central part of said image sensor (Annotated Fig. 1A below: light passing from the front of lens L1 also passes through the central surface region of L3 onto a central part of the cover glass C2 and image pickup element).
PNG
media_image2.png
501
1030
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Mizusawa discloses the endoscope of claim 10, wherein said light rays from said lateral directions entered said circumferential region and reflected by said distal surface region are imaged onto an annular region in vicinity of said central part of said image sensor (Annotated Fig. 1A: light beams from the lateral direction of optical path OP2 are imaged onto an annular region in vicinity of the central part of the image pickup element).
PNG
media_image3.png
846
1074
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Mizusawa discloses a lens module for endoscope (wide angle optical system intended for endoscope [0054], which comprises image pickup element [0141]), comprising: a first lens (negative lens L1); a second lens attached to said first lens (catadioptric optical element L3), said second lens being located between said first lens and said endoscope (optical element L3 is between the negative lens L1 and the image pickup element, which is on the right side of cover glass C2); wherein said first lens is configured to expand field of view of said endoscope (negative lens L1 is a planoconcave negative lens [0184] comprising negative refractive power, therefore configured to expand the field of view of an image pickup element within the endoscope), said second lens being configured to collect light rays from lateral directions and deflect said light rays onto an image sensor of said endoscope (Fig. 1A & 1B: optical element L3 collects light beams in the second optical path OP2 by reflecting or transmitting the light beams through or off of surfaces R3T, R2R, R1R and R2T [0073], OP2 are light rays from a lateral direction; light beams enter the image pickup element which is on the right side of cover glass C2 [0141]).
Regarding claim 13, Mizusawa discloses the lens module of claim 12, further disclosing wherein said first lens includes spherical or aspherical shape on one side that is placed adjacent to said second lens (negative lens L1 is a planoconcave negative lens [0138] that appears to comprise a spherical shape on its proximal side, appearing to be the right surface in Fig. 1A, which is adjacent to catadioptric optical element L3).
Regarding claim 14, Mizusawa discloses the lens module of claim 12, further disclosing wherein said first lens includes negative refractive power to expand said field of view of said endoscope in its forward-viewing direction (lens L1 is a planoconcave negative lens [0138] comprising negative refractive power, therefore configured to expand the field of view of the image pickup element).
Regarding claim 16, Mizusawa discloses the lens module of claim 12, further disclosing wherein said second lens is rotational symmetric to its optical axis (Annotated Fig. 1A: optical element L3 appears to be rotationally symmetrical to the optical axis) and consists three surface regions being placed adjacent to said first lens, each surface region of said second lens having a radius of curvature (Annotated Fig. 1A: three surface regions on the distal, left surface of L3; although the annotated central surface region appears to comprise a very slight curve based on the drawing, the examiner will interpret that surface of the central surface region to be flat – thus having an infinite radius of curvature; the annotated distal surface region and circumferential region have infinite radii of curvature).
PNG
media_image1.png
667
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Mizusawa discloses the lens module of claim 16, further disclosing wherein said surface regions of said second lens includes: a central surface region located on a central portion of said second lens; a distal surface region extended from said central surface region; and a circumferential region located on an outer edge of said second lens and enclosed said distal surface region and said central surface region (Annotated Fig. 1A attached to claim 16: distal surface region, central surface region and circumferential region are annotated above).
Regarding claim 18, Mizusawa discloses the lens module of claim 17, further disclosing wherein said light rays entered said first lens and passed said central surface region are imaged onto a central part of said image sensor (Annotated Fig. 1A below: light passing from the front of lens L1 also passes through the central surface region of L3 onto a central part of the cover glass C2 and image pickup element).
PNG
media_image2.png
501
1030
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Mizusawa discloses the lens module of claim 18, further disclosing wherein said light rays from said lateral directions entered said circumferential region and reflected by said distal surface region are imaged onto an annular region in vicinity of said central part of said image sensor (Annotated Fig. 1A: light beams from the lateral direction of optical path OP2 are imaged onto an annular region in vicinity of the central part of the image pickup element).
PNG
media_image3.png
846
1074
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizusawa in view of Miller et al. (US2023/0016459).
Regarding claim 3, Mizusawa discloses the endoscope of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein said functional module includes a first anti-fogging coating formed on a first surface far away from the said second lens. In the same field of endeavor, Miller teaches an endoscope, the endoscope comprising an image sensor (endoscope 100 may comprise image capture device such as CCD [0071]; camera [0027]), a lens disposed in front of the image sensor (camera lens [0027]), and an optical layer disposed on the lens (optical layers are disposed between the camera lens and light source and the visualization section of the coupler device [0027]), further teaching wherein the optical layer comprises an anti-fogging film ([0020-0021]). In view of Miller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the anti-fogging film of Miller, to the first lens of Mizusawa, as it is known in the endoscope lens art that the anti-fogging coating is common and advantageous for preventing condensation of fluid on any surface of the visualization section, allowing for better visibility [0020-0021].
Regarding claim 7, Mizusawa discloses the endoscope of claim 2, further disclosing wherein said first lens is formed by lens replication on a glass substrate (a glass material with a smaller chromatic dispersion can be selected for the negative lens of the first lens group [0114]; the limitation “formed by lens replication” is a product-by-process limitation), but fails to disclose the first lens having a second anti-fogging coating. In the same field of endeavor, Miller teaches an endoscope, the endoscope comprising an image sensor (endoscope 100 may comprise image capture device such as CCD [0071]; camera [0027]), a lens disposed in front of the image sensor (camera lens [0027]), and an optical layer disposed on the lens (optical layers are disposed between the camera lens and light source and the visualization section of the coupler device [0027]), further teaching wherein the optical layer comprises an anti-fogging film ([0020-0021]). In view of Miller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the anti-fogging film of Miller, to the first lens of Mizusawa, as it is known in the endoscope lens art that the anti-fogging coating is common and advantageous for preventing condensation of fluid on the surface of the visualization section, allowing for better visibility [0020-0021].
Regarding claim 15, Mizusawa discloses the lens module of claim 12, wherein said first lens is formed by lens replication on a glass substrate (a glass material with a smaller chromatic dispersion can be selected for the negative lens of the first lens group [0114]; the limitation “formed by lens replication” is a product-by-process limitation), but fails to disclose the first lens having an anti-fogging coating. In the same field of endeavor, Miller teaches an endoscope, the endoscope comprising an image sensor (endoscope 100 may comprise image capture device such as CCD [0071]; camera [0027]), a lens disposed in front of the image sensor (camera lens [0027]), and an optical layer disposed on the lens (optical layers are disposed between the camera lens and light source and the visualization section of the coupler device [0027]), further teaching wherein the optical layer comprises an anti-fogging film ([0020-0021]). In view of Miller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the anti-fogging film of Miller, to the first lens of Mizusawa, as it is known in the endoscope lens art that the anti-fogging coating is common and advantageous for preventing condensation of fluid on the surface of the visualization section, allowing for better visibility [0020-0021].
Regarding claim 20, Mizusawa discloses the lens module of claim 16, but fails to disclose wherein said second lens includes an anti-reflecting coating formed on a surface far away from said first lens. In the same field of endeavor, Miller teaches an endoscope, the endoscope comprising an image sensor (endoscope 100 may comprise image capture device such as CCD [0071]; camera [0016]), a lens disposed in front of the image sensor (camera lens [0027, 0016]), and an optical layer disposed on the lens (optical layers may be disposed on the surface of the camera lens [0016, 0027]), further teaching wherein the optical layer comprises an anti-reflective coating ([0016]). In view of Miller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the anti-reflective coating of Miller, to the second lens of Mizusawa, as it is known in the endoscope lens art that the anti-reflective coating is common and advantageous for reducing a substantial portion of the reflected light in a visible range of light waves, thus reducing glare, allowing for better visibility [0016, 0027].
Claim 6 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizusawa in view of Hirata (US2007/0173695).
Regarding claim 6, Mizusawa discloses the endoscope of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the endoscope further comprises a cover glass formed adjacent to said first lens. In the same field of endeavor, Hirata teaches an endoscope comprising an image sensor (endoscope device has a CCD [0044]), a first lens disposed in front of an illumination source, a second lens disposed between the illumination source and the first lens (Fig. 12: first lens group 14a, analogous to applicant’s second lens, is disposed between LED supporting block 13 and second lens group 14b, analogous to applicant’s first lens [0055]). Hirata further teaches the endoscope comprising a cover glass formed adjacent and distal to said first lens (Fig. 12: recessed portion 467 in which the second lens group 12b, the most distal lens group, resides, comprises a resin or cover glass to protect the lens group [0072]). In view of Hirata, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the cover glass of Hirata, to be placed distally of the first lens of Mizusawa, as it is known in the endoscope lens art that cover glass or resin is commonly placed over an exposed lens for protection [0072].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See references cited in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LI-TING SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-5771. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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.
/LI-TING SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
02/16/26