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 Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 22 April 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 currently stand pending in the application.
The amendments to the claims are not sufficient to overcome the claim objections presented in the previous Office Action, which are repeated below in relevant part, in addition to further claim objections necessitated by the claim amendments.
The amendments to the claims are not sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) listed in the previous action, which are repeated below in relevant part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 April 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As to McGrail et al. (US 2011/0130632) in view of Eggli et al. (US 2018/0338675) and Rothschild (US 2012/0246184), Applicant contends that Rothschild does not teach a touch input triggering both image capture and wireless transfer. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner respectfully submits that Eggli is relied upon as a teaching of image capture in response to a touch signal. Rothschild teaches that wireless image transfer may be automatic (par. [0022]), i.e. not require an input by a user. The combination of Eggli and Rothschild would render obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the transfer of the image data to the physically separate device automatic, as taught by Rothschild. The touch signal from the touch sensor which causes the capture of the still image as part of the image data, as taught by Eggli, would then also initiate the transfer of the still image as part of the image data to the device, since this transfer would be automatic as taught by Rothschild. The touch signal causes the capture of the image which is automatically transferred, and therefore the touch signal also initiates the wireless transfer of the image since without the touch signal the image would not be captured and there would be no image to transfer. Rothschild recites that the image transfer may be automatic or in response to input by a user, which indicates that the automatic image transfer is not in response to input by a user, i.e. it automatically happens once the image is captured, similarly to how a captured image can be automatically transferred to the cloud upon its capture. The rejection does not require either Eggli or Rothschild alone to teach a touch input triggering both image capture and wireless transfer; rather, their combination results in this teaching.
Applicant further contends that Rothschild is not analogous art. In response to applicant's argument that Rothschild is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Rothschild is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, since the instant invention requires image capture and wireless transfer, and Rothschild teaches a means of wirelessly transferring captured images from one device to a separate device.
As to claim 8, Applicant contends that neither Eggli nor McGrail teaches any features that toggle streaming off or on from the device. Examiner respectfully submits that the claim does not require toggling streaming off or on. Rather, claim 8 requires the processor to detect a second type of touch to start or stop streaming; starting or stopping is recited in the alternative, and thus the claim requires only one to occur based on the touch, not both via toggling. McGrail does disclose starting or stopping streaming of the image data to a device by pressing a button (wireless transmission of an image stream, i.e. starting streaming; par. [0116]), but does not disclose that starting streaming is based on a second type of touch. Eggli is relied upon to teach the use of a single touch sensor to detect different types of touch, to cause, for one, the starting or stopping streaming of the image data.
As to claim 16, Applicant contention that McGrail and Eggli do not teach the claimed features (“detect a first type of touch, and based on the first type of touch, capture a still image from the image data; and detect a second type of touch, and based on the second type of touch, starting or stopping streaming of the image data to a device that is physically separate from the body”) are similarly addressed above. As to Asmussen (US 7,565,680), Applicant contends that Asmussen also does not teach the above claimed features. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Asmussen is not relied upon to teach these features, which are disclosed by McGrail/Eggli, as discussed above.
Applicant further contends that Asmussen is not analogous art. In response to applicant's argument that Asmussen is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Asmussen is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, since the instant invention requires a touchscreen display that produces touch signals, and Asmussen teaches a touchscreen display that produces touch signals. A touchscreen display is equally pertinent to use in the surgical field, the cable box field, or any field in which a screen with touch capability is required.
Priority
The priority date is 03 November 2017.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: improper antecedence. Appropriate correction is required. The following amendments are suggested:
Claim 3 / line 2: “in response to [[the]] receipt of the blade signal”
Claim 3 / line 4: “response to the receipt of the touch signal”
Claim 12 / line 2: “in response to [[the]] receipt of the blade signal”
Claim 12 / line 4: “response to the receipt of the touch signals”
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
As to claim 20, the limitation “the starting or stopping of the streaming of the at least some of the image data to the device” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the starting or stopping of the streaming of the
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.
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 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0130632 to McGrail et al. (hereinafter, “McGrail”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0338675 to Eggli et al. (hereinafter, “Eggli”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0246184 to Rothschild.
As to claim 1, McGrail discloses a video laryngoscope, shown in FIG. 1, comprising: a body (108) (par. [0081]); a camera (100) coupled to the body (via conductor 102 and connectors 104, 105) and configured to obtain image data (par. [0083]), FIGS. 1-2; a display screen (112) coupled to the body and configured to display the image data (par. [0081]), FIG. 1; a touch sensor (806) coupled to the body and configured to generate a touch signal (although the embodiment of FIG. 1 only shows a side view and does not show the touch sensor, FIGS. 29-30 show different views of an embodiment of a reusable portion, i.e. body and display device; the push-buttons 806 are touch sensors because they respond to the pressure of a touch, and generate touch signals depending on the application, e.g. to activate the camera and wirelessly transmit image data to an external device) (par. [0116]), FIG. 29; and a processor (430) disposed in the body (par. [0089]), FIG. 11, and programmed to, in response to receipt of the touch signal from the touch sensor: capture an image (by activating the camera, McGrail, par. [0116]); and initiate wireless transfer of the captured image to a device (e.g. computer 476 or portable device 488) that is physically separate from the body (par. [0116]), FIGSs. 12-13.
As to claim 6, McGrail discloses the video laryngoscope of claim 1, wherein the touch sensor is one of a touchscreen of the display screen or a sensor separate from the display screen (the touch sensor 806 is separate from or adjacent to the display screen 112 as shown in FIG. 29).
McGrail is silent as to wherein the captured image is a still image from the image data, and in response to receipt of the touch signal, the processor both captures and initiates wireless transfer of the still image; wherein the touch signal is one of a tap or a press-and-hold.
Eggli teaches that a laryngoscope in the same field of endeavor is programmed to capture a still image (single image capture) in response to a first type of touch signal (tap or momentary press for less than one second) (par. [0016]) and to record a video (record series of images that form a video) in response to a second type of touch signal (press-and-hold for more than one second), so that a single button may be used for various functions, thus reducing the complexity of the device which improves cleanability and allowing the practitioner to operate the device without having to look at the controls and divert focus from the patient. Still images would be useful for quick and immediate assessment of patient tissue or instrument placement and video would be useful for a more thorough view of the entire patient tissue, so that the functionality of providing both still images and video depending on the type of touch signal would offer greater usefulness to the laryngoscope.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laryngoscope of McGrail to be able to capture both still images and video depending on the type of touch signal from a single touch sensor, to reduce the complexity of the device which improves cleanability and allows the practitioner to operate the device without having to look at multiple controls and divert focus from the patient. The capturing of a still image as part of the image data would be useful for quick and immediate assessment of the patient tissue or instrument placement that is printable at the physically separate display device.
Rothschild teaches that transfer of image data to a physically separate computer may be automatic (par. [0022]), in the same field of endeavor of imaging systems.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGrail to make the transfer of the image data to the physically separate device automatic, so that the practitioner does not have to press a button just for image data transfer and so the images can be immediately viewed by a supervisor outside of the surgical suite who is viewing the physically separate computer. The touch signal from the touch sensor which causes the capture of the still image as part of the image data would then also initiate the transfer of the still image as part of the image data to the device, since this transfer would be automatic as taught by Rothschild.
Claims 8-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0130632 to McGrail et al. (hereinafter, “McGrail”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0338675 to Eggli et al. (hereinafter, “Eggli”).
As to claim 8, McGrail discloses a video laryngoscope, shown in FIG. 1, comprising: a body (108) (par. [0081]); a camera (100) coupled to the body (via conductor 102 and connectors 104, 105) and configured to obtain image data (par. [0083]), FIGS. 1-2; a display screen (112) coupled to the body and configured to display the image data (par. [0081]), FIG. 1; a touch sensor (806) coupled to the body and configured to generate a touch signal (although the embodiment of FIG. 1 only shows a side view and does not show the touch sensor, FIGS. 29-30 show different views of an embodiment of a reusable portion, i.e. body and display device; the push-buttons 806 are touch sensors because they respond to the pressure of a touch, and generate touch signals depending on the application, e.g. to activate the camera and wirelessly transmit image data to an external device) (par. [0116]), FIG. 29; and a processor (430) disposed in the body (par. [0089]), FIG. 11, and programmed to, in response to receipt of touch signals from the touch sensor: capture an image (by activating the camera, McGrail, par. [0116]); and starting or stopping streaming of the image data to a device (e.g. computer 476 or portable device 488) that is physically separate from the body (par. [0116]), FIGSs. 12-13.
McGrail is silent as to, in response to receipt of touch signals from the touch sensor: detect a first type of touch, and based on the first type of touch, capture a still image from the image data; and detect a second type of touch, and based on the second type of touch, starting or stopping streaming of the image data to a device that is physically separate from the body (claim 8); wherein the first type of touch is a tap (claim 9); wherein the second type of touch is a press-and-hold (claim 10); wherein the touch signal is one of a tap or a press-and-hold (claim 15).
Eggli teaches that a laryngoscope in the same field of endeavor is programmed to detect a first type of touch (tap or momentary press for less than one second) (par. [0016]), and based on the first type of touch, capture a still image (single image capture) from the image data; and to detect a second type of touch (press-and-hold for more than one second), and based on the second type of touch, starting streaming of the image data into storage (capturing or recording a series of images into storage where the series of images forms a video, comprises streaming the series of images/video/image data into the storage), so that a single button may be used for various functions, thus reducing the complexity of the device which improves cleanability and allowing the practitioner to operate the device without having to look at the controls and divert focus from the patient. Still images would be useful for quick and immediate assessment of patient tissue or instrument placement and video would be useful for a more thorough view of the entire patient tissue, so that the functionality of providing both still images and video depending on the type of touch signal would offer greater usefulness to the laryngoscope.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laryngoscope of McGrail to be able to capture both still images and video depending on the type of touch signal (tap or press-and-hold) from a single touch sensor, to reduce the complexity of the device which improves cleanability and allows the practitioner to operate the device without having to look at multiple controls and divert focus from the patient. The capturing of a still image as part of the image data (with a tap) would be useful for quick and immediate assessment of the patient tissue or instrument placement that is printable at the physically separate display device. The second type of touch (press-and-hold) would start streaming of the image data into storage, where the image data is a series of images that form a video. As applied to McGrail, the image data would be streamed or saved into the storage of the device (McGrail, e.g. computer 476, par. [0104]) that is physically separate from the body (McGrail, par. [0116]).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0130632 to McGrail et al. (hereinafter, “McGrail”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0338675 to Eggli et al. (hereinafter, “Eggli”) and U.S. Patent No. US 7,565,680 to Asmussen.
As to claim 16, McGrail discloses a video laryngoscope, shown in FIG. 1, comprising: a body (108) (par. [0081]); a camera (100) coupled to the body (via conductor 102 and connectors 104, 105) and configured to obtain image data (par. [0083]), FIGS. 1-2; a display (112) coupled to the body and configured to display the image data (par. [0081]), FIG. 1; and a processor (430) disposed in the body (par. [0089]), FIG. 11, and programmed to, in response to receipt of touch signals from a touch sensor (806; the push-buttons 806 are touch sensors because they respond to the pressure of a touch, and generate touch signals depending on the application, e.g. to activate the camera and wirelessly transmit image data to an external device) (par. [0116]), FIG. 29: capture an image (by activating the camera, McGrail, par. [0116]); and starting or stopping streaming of the image data to a device (e.g. computer 476 or portable device 488) that is physically separate from the body (par. [0116]), FIGSs. 12-13.
As to claim 18, McGrail discloses the video laryngoscope of claim 16, wherein the device is one of a room display system or a hospital data storage system (par. [0104]; the computer is provided to view images and thus is a display system and is in a room, FIG. 12; and the computer accesses a storage device/memory and thus is a data storage system and is in a hospital).
McGrail is silent as to, in response to receipt of touch signals: detect a first type of touch, and based on the first type of touch, capture a still image from the image data; and detect a second type of touch, and based on the second type of touch, starting or stopping streaming of the image data to a device that is physically separate from the body (claim 16); wherein the first type of touch is a tap, and the second type of touch is a press-and-hold (claim 17).
Eggli teaches that a laryngoscope in the same field of endeavor is programmed to detect a first type of touch (tap or momentary press for less than one second) (par. [0016]), and based on the first type of touch, capture a still image (single image capture) from the image data; and to detect a second type of touch (press-and-hold for more than one second), and based on the second type of touch, starting streaming of the image data into storage (capturing or recording a series of images into storage where the series of images forms a video, comprises streaming the series of images/video/image data into the storage), so that a single button may be used for various functions, thus reducing the complexity of the device which improves cleanability and allowing the practitioner to operate the device without having to look at the controls and divert focus from the patient. Still images would be useful for quick and immediate assessment of patient tissue or instrument placement and video would be useful for a more thorough view of the entire patient tissue, so that the functionality of providing both still images and video depending on the type of touch signal would offer greater usefulness to the laryngoscope.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laryngoscope of McGrail to be able to capture both still images and video depending on the type of touch signal (tap or press-and-hold) from a single touch sensor, to reduce the complexity of the device which improves cleanability and allows the practitioner to operate the device without having to look at multiple controls and divert focus from the patient. The capturing of a still image as part of the image data (with a tap) would be useful for quick and immediate assessment of the patient tissue or instrument placement that is printable at the physically separate display device. The second type of touch (press-and-hold) would start streaming of the image data into storage, where the image data is a series of images that form a video. As applied to McGrail, the image data would be streamed or saved into the storage of the device (McGrail, e.g. computer 476, par. [0104]) that is physically separate from the body (McGrail, par. [0116]).
McGrail is silent as to a touchscreen display, where the touch signals are from the touchscreen display.
Asmussen teaches that a display screen (222) and an input device (704) such as a button, FIG. 6, can be combined in the form of a touchscreen (col. 49 / lines 61-67).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laryngoscope of McGrail to combine the display screen and the input device (button) into a touchscreen that performs both the display of the image data and the generating of touch signals, since forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, and since Asmussen teaches that a display screen and an input device can be combined in the form of a touchscreen, therefore increasing cleanability and sleekness of design. The touch signals would be generated in the same way and by the same inputs as disclosed in McGrail/Eggli, where the first type of touch would be a tap on the touchscreen and the second type of touch would be a press-and-hold on the touchscreen, with the resulting corresponding programming as described above.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrail in view of Eggli and Rothschild (hereinafter, “McGrail/Eggli/Rothschild”), as applied to claims 1, 6, and 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0167686 to McGrath (hereinafter, “McGrath”).
As to claims 2-4, McGrail/Eggli/Rothschild are silent as to further comprising a blade sensor supported by the body, wherein the blade sensor is configured to generate a blade signal upon detection of an activating blade (claim 2); wherein the processor is programmed to activate the touch sensor in response to the receipt of the blade signal from the blade sensor to thereby enable the transfer of the still image to the device in response to receipt of the touch signal from the touch sensor (claim 3); wherein the processor is programmed to enable the transfer only while the blade signal from the blade sensor indicates the detection of the activating blade (claim 4).
As to claim 1, McGrath teaches a laryngoscope, in the same field of endeavor, comprising a body (2); a camera (7) coupled to the body and configured to obtain image data; a display screen coupled to the body and configured to display the image data (par. [0023]); and a processor disposed in the body and programmed to initiate wireless transfer of the image data to the display screen (par. [0042]-[0043]).
As to claim 2, McGrath teaches laryngoscope of claim 21, further comprising a blade sensor (8a) supported by the body, wherein the blade sensor is configured to generate a blade signal upon detection of an activating blade (blade 3 comprises activating element 8b which, when in contact with the blade sensor, completes a circuit that allows transfer of data and power, which comprise a blade signal since they would not occur without the blade) (par. [0043]), FIG. 3.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide McGrail/Eggli/Rothschild’s laryngoscope with a blade sensor supported by the body, as taught by McGrath, with McGrail/Eggli/Rothschild’s removable blade (McGrail, 14) comprising an activating element that, when in contact with the blade sensor, completes a circuit that sends a blade signal to allow transfer of data and power, so that the display device in McGrail that includes the display screen and touch sensor is disabled entirely until the blade and the body are connected, in order to save power before use (McGrail, par. [0124]). Although McGrail does contemplate that the display device is disabled entirely until the blade and the body are connected (McGrail, par. [0124]) and that the body and blade have coupling connectors for image transfer (McGrail, 104, 105, par. [0081], FIG. 1), McGrail does not disclose how the display device is disabled. Modification in view of McGrath would allow the display device to be disabled in a power saving mode until the activating element on the removable blade comes into contact with or activates the blade sensor, when the blade is attached to the body, to generate a blade signal that allows power and data transfer between the body and blade. The processor would then be programmed to activate or turn on the display device coupled to the body in response to receipt of the blade signal when the blade is attached, which correspondingly activates the touch sensor which is part of the display device. The transfer of the image data to the physically separate device would then be enabled in response to receipt of the touch signal from the touch sensor, as disclosed in McGrail, because the touch sensor is activated or in a functional mode by the connection of the blade. Since the display device would be disabled entirely until the blade and the body are connected, the processor would be programmed to enable the data transfer only while the blade signal from the blade sensor indicates detection of the activating blade because the activating element on the blade must be in contact with the blade sensor, i.e. sending the blade signal, in order for the transfer of power and data, as taught by McGrath, and contemplated by McGrail for power saving reasons.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrail in view of Eggli (hereinafter, “McGrail/Eggli”), as applied to claims 8-10 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0167686 to McGrath (hereinafter, “McGrath”).
As to claims 11-13, McGrail/Eggli are silent as to further comprising a blade sensor supported by the body, wherein the blade sensor is configured to generate a blade signal upon detection of an activating blade (claim 11); wherein the processor is programmed to activate the touch sensor in response to the receipt of the blade signal from the blade sensor to thereby enable the starting or stopping of the streaming to the device in response to receipt of the touch signals from the touch sensor (claim 12); wherein the processor is programmed to enable the starting or stopping of the streaming only while the blade signal from the blade sensor indicates the detection of the activating blade (claim 13).
As to claim 8, McGrath teaches a laryngoscope, in the same field of endeavor, comprising a body (2); a camera (7) coupled to the body and configured to obtain image data; a display screen coupled to the body and configured to display the image data (par. [0023]); and a processor disposed in the body and programmed to initiate wireless transfer of the image data to the display screen (par. [0042]-[0043]).
As to claim 11, McGrath teaches laryngoscope of claim 21, further comprising a blade sensor (8a) supported by the body, wherein the blade sensor is configured to generate a blade signal upon detection of an activating blade (blade 3 comprises activating element 8b which, when in contact with the blade sensor, completes a circuit that allows transfer of data and power, which comprise a blade signal since they would not occur without the blade) (par. [0043]), FIG. 3.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide McGrail/Eggli’s laryngoscope with a blade sensor supported by the body, as taught by McGrath, with McGrail/Eggli’s removable blade (McGrail, 14) comprising an activating element that, when in contact with the blade sensor, completes a circuit that sends a blade signal to allow transfer of data and power, so that the display device in McGrail that includes the display screen and touch sensor is disabled entirely until the blade and the body are connected, in order to save power before use (McGrail, par. [0124]). Although McGrail does contemplate that the display device is disabled entirely until the blade and the body are connected (McGrail, par. [0124]) and that the body and blade have coupling connectors for image transfer (McGrail, 104, 105, par. [0081], FIG. 1), McGrail does not disclose how the display device is disabled. Modification in view of McGrath would allow the display device to be disabled in a power saving mode until the activating element on the removable blade comes into contact with or activates the blade sensor, when the blade is attached to the body, to generate a blade signal that allows power and data transfer between the body and blade. The processor would then be programmed to activate or turn on the display device coupled to the body in response to receipt of the blade signal when the blade is attached, which correspondingly activates the touch sensor which is part of the display device. The starting or stopping of the streaming would then be enabled in response to receipt of the touch signal from the touch sensor, as disclosed in McGrail, because the touch sensor is activated or in a functional mode by the connection of the blade. Since the display device would be disabled entirely until the blade and the body are connected, the processor would be programmed to enable the starting or stopping of the streaming only while the blade signal from the blade sensor indicates the detection of the activating blade because the activating element on the blade must be in contact with the blade sensor, i.e. sending the blade signal, in order for the transfer of power and data, as taught by McGrath, and contemplated by McGrail for power saving reasons.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0130632 to McGrail et al. (hereinafter, “McGrail”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0338675 to Eggli et al. (hereinafter, “Eggli”) and U.S. Patent No. US 7,565,680 to Asmussen (hereinafter, “McGrail/Eggli/Asmussen”), as applied to claims 16-18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0167686 to McGrath (hereinafter, “McGrath”).
As to claim 20, McGrail/Eggli/Asmussen are silent as to further comprising a blade sensor supported by the body, wherein the blade sensor is configured to generate a blade signal upon detection of an activating blade, wherein the processor is programmed to activate the touchscreen display in response to receipt of the blade signal from the blade sensor to thereby enable the starting or stopping of the streaming of the at least some of the image data to the device in response to the receipt of the touch signals from the touchscreen display.
As to claim 16, McGrath teaches a laryngoscope, in the same field of endeavor, comprising a body (2); a camera (7) coupled to the body and configured to obtain image data; a display screen coupled to the body and configured to display the image data (par. [0023]); and a processor disposed in the body and programmed to initiate wireless transfer of the image data to the display screen (par. [0042]-[0043]).
As to claim 20, McGrath teaches laryngoscope of claim 21, further comprising a blade sensor (8a) supported by the body, wherein the blade sensor is configured to generate a blade signal upon detection of an activating blade (blade 3 comprises activating element 8b which, when in contact with the blade sensor, completes a circuit that allows transfer of data and power, which comprise a blade signal since they would not occur without the blade) (par. [0043]), FIG. 3.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide McGrail/Eggli/Asmussen’s laryngoscope with a blade sensor supported by the body, as taught by McGrath, with McGrail/Eggli/Asmussen’s removable blade (McGrail, 14) comprising an activating element that, when in contact with the blade sensor, completes a circuit that sends a blade signal to allow transfer of data and power, so that the display device in McGrail that includes the display screen and touch sensor is disabled entirely until the blade and the body are connected, in order to save power before use (McGrail, par. [0124]). Although McGrail does contemplate that the display device is disabled entirely until the blade and the body are connected (McGrail, par. [0124]) and that the body and blade have coupling connectors for image transfer (McGrail, 104, 105, par. [0081], FIG. 1), McGrail does not disclose how the display device is disabled. Modification in view of McGrath would allow the display device to be disabled in a power saving mode until the activating element on the removable blade comes into contact with or activates the blade sensor, when the blade is attached to the body, to generate a blade signal that allows power and data transfer between the body and blade. The processor would then be programmed to activate or turn on the display device coupled to the body in response to receipt of the blade signal when the blade is attached, which correspondingly activates the touch sensor which is part of the display device. The starting or stopping of the streaming would then be enabled in response to the receipt of the touch signals from the touchscreen display, as disclosed in McGrail, because the touchscreen display is activated or in a functional mode by the connection of the blade. Since the display device would be disabled entirely until the blade and the body are connected, the processor would be programmed to enable the starting or stopping of the streaming only while the blade signal from the blade sensor indicates detection of the activating blade because the activating element on the blade must be in contact with the blade sensor, i.e. sending the blade signal, in order for the transfer of power and data, as taught by McGrath, and contemplated by McGrail for power saving reasons.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrail/Eggli/Rothschild, as applied to claims 1, 6, and 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 9,473,749 to Selby et al. (hereinafter, “Selby”).
As to claim 5, McGrail/Eggli/Rothschild disclose the laryngoscope comprising a housing that includes the display screen, FIG. 29, wherein the touch sensor (806) is located in a lower left quadrant of the housing (depending on the perspective; if viewed from the front of the patient, i.e. the right side of FIG. 29 is “up,” the touch sensor is in the lower left quadrant of the housing).
Assuming arguendo, McGrail/Eggli/Rothschild are silent as to the touch sensor is located in a lower left quadrant of the housing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the touch sensor in McGrail/Eggli/Rothschild to the lower left quadrant of the housing, since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, and providing the touch sensor in the lower left quadrant would allow one-handed use of the laryngoscope, with the touch sensor accessible by the thumb of the hand holding the laryngoscope, so that the other hand can be used for manipulating other tools.
McGrail/Eggli/Rothschild are silent as to a bezel that surrounds the display screen.
As to claim 5, Selby teaches a visual inspection device, FIG. 1, in the same field of endeavor of imaging systems, that includes a body (14); a camera (44) coupled to the body; and a display screen (50) coupled to the body and configured to display image data from the camera; comprising a housing (58) that includes the display screen and a bezel (54) that surrounds the display screen to protect the display screen if the device impacts a surface or is dropped (col. 2 / lines 53-64).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide McGrail/Eggli/Rothschild’s display screen with a surrounding protective bezel to protect the display screen if the device impacts a surface or is dropped.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrail/Eggli, as applied to claims 8-10 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 9,473,749 to Selby et al. (hereinafter, “Selby”).
As to claim 14, McGrail/Eggli disclose the laryngoscope comprising a housing that includes the display screen, FIG. 29, wherein the touch sensor (806) is located in a lower left quadrant of the housing (depending on the perspective; if viewed from the front of the patient, i.e. the right side of FIG. 29 is “up,” the touch sensor is in the lower left quadrant of the housing).
Assuming arguendo, McGrail/Eggli are silent as to the touch sensor is located in a lower left quadrant of the housing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the touch sensor in McGrail/Eggli to the lower left quadrant of the housing, since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, and providing the touch sensor in the lower left quadrant would allow one-handed use of the laryngoscope, with the touch sensor accessible by the thumb of the hand holding the laryngoscope, so that the other hand can be used for manipulating other tools.
McGrail/Eggli are silent as to a bezel that surrounds the display screen.
As to claim 14, Selby teaches a visual inspection device, FIG. 1, in the same field of endeavor of imaging systems, that includes a body (14); a camera (44) coupled to the body; and a display screen (50) coupled to the body and configured to display image data from the camera; comprising a housing (58) that includes the display screen and a bezel (54) that surrounds the display screen to protect the display screen if the device impacts a surface or is dropped (col. 2 / lines 53-64).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide McGrail/Eggli’s display screen with a surrounding protective bezel to protect the display screen if the device impacts a surface or is dropped.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0130632 to McGrail et al. (hereinafter, “McGrail”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0338675 to Eggli et al. (hereinafter, “Eggli”) and U.S. Patent No. US 7,565,680 to Asmussen (hereinafter, “McGrail/Eggli/Asmussen”), as applied to claims 16-18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0173708 to Vining et al. (hereinafter, “Vining”).
McGrail/Eggli/Asmussen disclose wherein the device is a monitor (McGrail, e.g. computer 476, par. [0104], which has a display monitor to view images, FIG. 12), but are silent as to wherein the monitor is configured to relay the image data to at least one of a room display system or a hospital data storage system.
Vining teaches a portable technology comprising at least a display unit and memory storage, connected with examination equipment and communication systems, relays information from a patient to a physician at a remote physicians’ center, where the physician receives and views image data to analyze, diagnose, and instruct the healthcare professional in the room with the patient, and records the virtual physician visit information into the patient’s record, like an electronic health record (par. [0025]). The healthcare professional can then perform the treatment plan as directed by the physician without the physician having to be with the patient in-person, therefore allowing the physician to treat more patients at a time or patients who are unable to travel to the physicians’ center. Because the physician receives and views the image data, the image data must be relayed to a room display system in the physicians’ center, and/or because the physician records the visit information into the patient’s record, like an electronic health record, the image data is relayed into a data storage system (capable of being in a hospital) at least by virtue of the stored treatment plan being based on the image data as well as because digital media is also saved. As applied to McGrail/Eggli/Asmussen, the monitor (McGrail, e.g. computer 476) to which the image data is streamed would then relay the image data to at least one of a room display system in the physicians’ center for the physician to view at a remote location from the patient, or a hospital data storage system where the physician saves the information.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TRACY L KAMIKAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-7276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:30 PM.
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, Kevin Truong, can be reached at 571-272-4705. 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.
/TRACY L KAMIKAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights