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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated June 23, 2026.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okiyama (US PGPUB 2021/0059534 – “Okiyama”).
Regarding Claim 1, a first embodiment of Okiyama discloses:
An assistance tool (Okiyama FIG. 1, intraoral imaging aid 3) configured to be inserted into an oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 1, oral cavity 71) for imaging an inner side of the oral cavity by an imaging device (Okiyama FIG. 3, imaging device 57), the assistance tool comprising:
a main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) in a cylindrical shape, the main body having a distal end portion and a proximal end portion outwardly opposite to each other in an insertion direction (Okiyama FIG. 3, ends 32 and 33 located on opposites sides of main body 31), the assistance tool being configured to be inserted into the oral cavity along the insertion direction (Okiyama FIG. 1, showing intraoral imaging aid 3 inserted into oral cavity 71);
an opening (Okiyama FIG. 3, opening 32A) formed at the proximal end portion of the main body (Okiyama FIG. 3, proximal end 32) in a manner that the imaging device is configured to be inserted into an interior of the main body (Okiyama FIG. 3, showing imaging device 57 inserted into the interior of main body 31).
The first embodiment depicted in Okiyama FIG. 2 does not explicitly show a cover being formed at the distal end portion of the main body in a manner that light detected by the imaging device is configured to pass through the cover.
However, a second embodiment of Okiyama teaches a cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, window 33A; Okiyama paragraph [0061], “window 33A may be covered with a transparent member”) formed at the distal end portion of the main body in a manner that light detected by the imaging device is configured to pass through the cover (Okiyama paragraph [0061], “window 33A is provided to give a visual field from the inside of the main body 31 to the outside of the main body 31, and here, the lens of the imaging device 57 in the main body 31 is exposed to the outside”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Okiyama’s covered window with the assistance tool disclosed in the first embodiment of Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an assistance tool that prevents patient fluids from reaching an imaging device (see imaging device 57 in Okiyama FIG. 3).
The first embodiment of Okiyama further discloses:
a cover collar (Okiyama FIG. 2, regulator 35) formed to connect the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) and the cover in a manner that the cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, covered window 33A) is disposed at the distal end portion of the main body, at least a part of the cover collar being included within an angle of view imaged by the imaging device inserted from the opening (Okiyama FIG. 3, showing regulator 35 in the angle of view of imaging device 57),
wherein the cover collar is inwardly protruded from an inner surface of the main body toward an inner side of the main body in a cross-sectional view (Okiyama FIG. 2, showing regulator 35 protruding inwardly from the connecting surface 36 of main body 31 and towards an opposite side of an interior of the main body 31).
Regarding Claim 3, Okiyama discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
The first and second embodiments of Okiyama described in the rejection of Claim 1 do not explicitly teach a notification window for making a notifier visible in a case where the imaging device having the notifier for notifying that the imaging device is attached to the assistance tool is inserted from the opening.
However, a third embodiment of Okiyama teaches a notification window (Okiyama FIG. 8, holes 243 in intraoral imaging aid 23) for making a notifier visible in a case where the imaging device having the notifier for notifying that the imaging device is attached to the assistance tool is inserted from the opening (Examiner interprets holes 243 as allowing a user to see if and where the imaging device 57 is inserted within the intraoral imaging aid 23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Okiyama’s holes with the assistance tool taught by the first and second embodiments of Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an assistance tool that not only allows a user to see if and where an imaging device is inserted, but also provides an air passage for the patient (see Okiyama paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 5, Okiyama discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Okiyama further discloses a plate (Okiyama FIG. 2, flange 34) being disposed along at least a part of an outer periphery of the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) to protrude from the main body toward an outer peripheral direction of the main body (Okiyama FIG. 3, showing flange 34 protruding peripherally and outwardly from main body 31),
wherein the outer peripheral direction is perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the insertion direction (Okiyama FIG. 1, showing unlabeled flange 34 on intraoral imaging aid 3 extending perpendicular to the direction that the intraoral imaging aid 3 is being inserted into the patient’s oral cavity 71).
Regarding Claim 6, Okiyama discloses the features of Claim 5, as described above.
Okiyama further teaches wherein the plate (Okiyama FIG. 2, flange 34) includes a through hole (Okiyama FIG. 3, opening 32A) penetrating in a thickness direction of the plate (Okiyama FIG. 3, showing opening 32A penetrating in a thickness direction of flange 34).
Regarding Claim 10, a first embodiment of Okiyama discloses:
An imaging device (Okiyama FIG. 3, imaging device 57) configured to be inserted into an interior of a main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) of an assistance tool (Okiyama FIG. 1, intraoral imaging aid 3) from an opening (Okiyama FIG. 3, opening 32A) of the assistance tool,
the assistance tool being inserted into an oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 1, oral cavity 71) for imaging an inner side of the oral cavity the assistance tool including:
the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) in a cylindrical shape, the main body having a distal end portion and a proximal end portion outwardly opposite to each other in an insertion direction (Okiyama FIG. 3, ends 32 and 33 located on opposites sides of main body 31), the assistance tool being configured to be inserted into the oral cavity along the insertion direction (Okiyama FIG. 1, showing intraoral imaging aid 3 inserted into oral cavity 71);
the opening (Okiyama FIG. 3, opening 32A) formed at the proximal end portion of the main body (Okiyama FIG. 3, proximal end 32).
The first embodiment depicted in Okiyama FIG. 2 does not explicitly show a cover formed at the distal end portion of the main body.
However, a second embodiment of Okiyama teaches a cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, window 33A; Okiyama paragraph [0061], “window 33A may be covered with a transparent member”) formed at the distal end portion of the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, distal end 33 of main body 31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Okiyama’s covered window with the assistance tool disclosed in the first embodiment of Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an assistance tool that prevents patient fluids from reaching an imaging device (see imaging device 57 in Okiyama FIG. 3).
The first embodiment of Okiyama further discloses:
a cover collar (Okiyama FIG. 2, regulator 35) formed to connect the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) and the cover in a manner that the cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, window 33A) is disposed at the distal end portion of the main body.
The first and second embodiments of Okiyama do not explicitly teach:
the imaging device comprising:
at least one processor, the at least one processor being configured to execute computer readable instructions so as to capture a subject image by receiving an operation input by a user.
However, a third embodiment of Okiyama teaches the imaging device (Okiyama FIG. 13, intraoral imaging apparatus 5) comprising at least one processor (Okiyama FIG. 13, CPU 51; see also Okiyama paragraph [0090]), the at least one processor being configured to execute computer readable instructions so as to capture a subject image by receiving an operation input by a user (Okiyama FIG. 15, step S2 “Start Recording”; see also Okiyama paragraph [0126]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Okiyama’s processor-control of image recording with the imaging device taught by the first and second embodiments of Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an imaging device that is processor-controlled, in order to allow the processor to both control operation of the imaging device as well as analyze images for pathology (see Okiyama paragraph {0090]).
Okiyama further teaches the at least one processor is configured to execute computer readable instructions so as to determine whether at least part of the cover collar is included in the subject image, and output information indicating that the imaging device is not inserted into the assistance tool in a case in which the at least one processor determines that the at least part of the cover collar is not included in the subject image (Okiyama FIG. 3, showing imaging device 57 proximal to regulator 35, such that imaging device 57 is able to capture an image of regulator 35 only when positioned within intraoral imaging aid 3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okiyama (US PGPUB 2021/0059534 – “Okiyama”) in view of Suzuki et al. (US PGPUB 2006/0255683 – “Suzuki”).
Regarding Claim 2, Okiyama discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
The first embodiment of Okiyama further discloses:
the cover collar includes an appearing-in-image area formed in a manner that at least part thereof is included within the angle of view (Okiyama FIG. 3, showing regulator 35 in the angle of view of imaging device 57).
Okiyama does not explicitly disclose the appearing-in-image area (of the cover/cap) includes a structure formed in a predetermined pattern.
Suzuki is analogous art in the field of endoscopy that teaches the appearing-in-image area (of the cover/cap – Suzuki FIG. 2, cap 120 in analogous art feedback controller 100) includes a structure formed in a predetermined pattern (Suzuki FIG. 5B, barcode 190; Suzuki paragraph [0164], “an encoding barcode 190 that is fixed to an inside surface of the cap 120…The rotational state detecting device 220 is constructed so as to detect the rotational state of the cap 120 with respect to the base 110 by detecting the movement of the encoding barcode 190 with the optical sensor unit 192.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Suzuki’s barcode with the cover disclosed in the assistance tool taught by Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an assistance tool that allows a user to visualize relative rotation between a scope and a cover (see Okiyama paragraph [0053] and Suzuki paragraph [0045]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okiyama (US PGPUB 2021/0059534 – “Okiyama”) in view of Takasu et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0015964 – “Takasu”).
Regarding Claim 4, Okiyama discloses the features of Claim 3, as described above.
As described above, the third embodiment of Okiyama teaches the notification window (Okiyama FIG. 8, holes 243 in intraoral imaging aid 23) is disposed at a position facing the notifier in the case where the imaging device is inserted from the opening (Examiner interprets holes 243 as allowing a user to see if and where the imaging device 57 is inserted within the intraoral imaging aid 23).
Okiyama does not explicitly disclose:
the notifier includes a light emitter that emits light to an outer side, and
at least a periphery of the notification window inhibits transmission of at least a part of the light emitted from the light emitter.
Takasu is analogous art directed to emitting visible notification signals to a user, and teaches:
the notifier includes a light emitter (Takasu FIG. 8, light emitters 32a, 32b, and 32c) that emits light to an outer side(Takasu FIG. 8, outer side of case 33) , and
at least a periphery (Takasu FIG. 8, case 33 sides of opening in case 33 through which light from light emitters 32a, 32b, and 32c pass) of the notification window inhibits transmission of at least a part of the light emitted from the light emitter (Takasu paragraph [0062], “Respective light emitted from the light emitters 32a, 32b, and 32c toward the "front" direction sequentially pass through the openings of the case 33…as indication lights such as various warnings. The indication lights are…visually recognized by the driver”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takasu’s LED with the assistance tool taught by Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a notification window that is highly visible, even in a dim room.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okiyama (US PGPUB 2021/0059534 – “Okiyama”) in view of Truckai et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0084971 – “Truckai”).
Regarding Claim 7, Okiyama discloses the features of Claim 1, as described above.
The first embodiment of Okiyama further teaches an external positioning mechanism (Okiyama FIG. 4, flange 34) for positioning the imaging device and the assistance tool in the case where the imaging device is inserted from the opening (Examiner interprets Okiyama’s flange 34 as positioning the imaging device while entering the intraoral imaging aid 3). However, if the “positioning mechanism” were to be interpreted by Applicant as an internal positioning mechanism, then for purposes of compact prosecution Examiner further cites Truckai.
Truckai is analogous art in the field of endoscopy that teaches an internal positioning mechanism for positioning the imaging device and the assistance tool in the case where the imaging device is inserted from the opening (Truckai FIG. 2, tapered interior of distal end 152 of end cap 150 on sheath 120, which guide distal end of endoscope 108 into distal end of end cap 150).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Truckai’s internal tapered guides with the assistance tool taught by Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an assistance tool that ensures placement of an endoscope/imaging device against the distal end of Okiyama’s end cap 150, thus providing optimal clarity in images captured by the endoscope/imaging device.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okiyama (US PGPUB 2021/0059534 – “Okiyama”) in view of Shiratani (US PGPUB 2019/0034800 – “Shiratani”).
Regarding Claim 11, Okiyama teaches the features of Claim 10, as described above.
Okiyama does not explicitly teach the determination is made by inputting the captured subject image to a learned assistance tool attachment determination model obtained by learning based on a subject image for learning classified according to whether the at least part of the cover collar is included in the subject image.
Shiratani is analogous art in the field of image recognition that teaches the determination is made by inputting the captured subject image to a learned assistance tool attachment determination model obtained by learning based on a subject image for learning classified according to whether the at least part of the cover collar is included in the subject image (Shiratani FIG. 1, image recognition device 4; Shiratani paragraph [0022], “The image recognition device 4, which includes a convolutional neural network, acquires image data…and learns and recognizes the images.”. Examiner interprets Shiratani paragraph [0022] as teaching the well-known process of identifying images using a convolutional neural network (CNN). Thus, Shiratani teaches the process of recognizing what features are or are not found in an image, such as Okiyama’s regulator 35 (cover collar).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Shiratani’s image recognition process with the imaging device taught by Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an imaging device that can quickly and accurately identify objects and an environment shown in an image, in order to operate the imaging device in accordance with the identified environment.
Regarding Claim 12, Okiyama discloses:
A computer program product embodying computer readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Okiyama FIG. 13, RAM 52, ROM 53, and CPU 51; see also Okiyama paragraph [0090]) for causing a computer to control an imaging device (Okiyama FIG. 3, imaging device 57) that is inserted into an interior of a main body (Okiyama FIG. 3, main body 31) of an assistance tool (Okiyama FIG. 3, intraoral imaging aid 3) from an opening (Okiyama FIG. 3, opening 32A) of the assistance tool, the computer executing a process by a processor so as to perform the steps of:
capturing a subject image by the imaging device in response to an operation input by a user, the subject image including an inner side of an oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 1, oral cavity 71; Okiyama FIG. 15, step S1 “Has recording button been pressed”) and step S2 “Start Recording”; see also Okiyama paragraphs [0125] – [0126]”);
the assistance tool is configured to be inserted into the oral cavity for imaging the inner side of the oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 1, showing intraoral imaging aid 3 imaging the inner side of oral cavity 71), and the assistance tool includes:
the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) in a cylindrical shape, the main body having a distal end portion and a proximal end portion outwardly opposite to each other in an insertion direction (Okiyama FIG. 3, ends 32 and 33 located on opposites sides of main body 31), the assistance tool being configured to be inserted into the oral cavity along the insertion direction (Okiyama FIG. 1, showing intraoral imaging aid 3 inserted into oral cavity 71);
the opening (Okiyama FIG. 3, opening 32A) formed at the proximal end portion of the main body (Okiyama FIG. 3, proximal end 32).
The first embodiment depicted in Okiyama FIG. 2, does not explicitly show a cover formed at the distal end portion of the main body.
However, a second embodiment of Okiyama teaches a cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, window 33A; Okiyama paragraph [0061], “window 33A may be covered with a transparent member”) formed at the distal end portion of the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, showing window 33A at the distal end portion of the main body 31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Okiyama’s covered window with the assistance tool disclosed in the first embodiment of Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an assistance tool that prevents patient fluids from reaching an imaging device (see imaging device 57 in Okiyama FIG. 3).
The first embodiment of Okiyama further discloses:
the cover collar (Okiyama FIG. 2, regulator 35) formed to connect the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) and the cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, covered window 33A) in a manner that the cover is disposed at the distal end portion of the main body (Okiyama FIG. 3, showing window 33A at the distal end portion of the main body 31), and
wherein the cover collar is inwardly protruded from an inner surface of the main body toward an inner side of the main body in a cross-sectional view (Okiyama FIG. 2, showing regulator 35 protruding inwardly from the connecting surface 36 of main body 31 and towards an opposite side of an interior of the main body 31.
Although Okiyama FIG. 3 shows imaging device 57 capturing an image of regulator 35 when the imaging device 57 is inserted into the main body 31, Okiyama does not explicitly teach determining whether at least part of the cover collar is included in the subject image; and outputting information indicating that the imaging device is not inserted into the assistance tool in a case in which the processor determines that the at least part of a cover collar is not included in the subject image.
Shiratani is analogous art in the field of image processing that teaches determining whether at least part of the cover collar is included in the subject image; and outputting information indicating that the imaging device is not inserted into the assistance tool in a case in which the processor determines that the at least part of a cover collar is not included in the subject image (Shiratani FIG. 1, image recognition device 4; Shiratani paragraph [0022], “The image recognition device 4, which includes a convolutional neural network, acquires image data…and learns and recognizes the images.”. Examiner interprets Shiratani paragraph [0022] as teaching the well-known process of identifying images using a convolutional neural network (CNN) to recognize a structure within an image. Thus, Shiratani teaches the process of recognizing what features are or are not found in an image, such as Okiyama’s regulator 35 (cover collar).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Shiratani’s image recognition process with the imaging device taught by Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an imaging device that can quickly and accurately identify objects and an environment shown in an image, in order to operate the imaging device in accordance with the identified environment.
Regarding Claim 13, Okiyama discloses:
A method executed by at least one processor (Okiyama FIG. 13, RAM 52, ROM 53, and CPU 51), the method for causing the at least one processor in an imaging device (Okiyama FIG. 3, imaging device 57) to execute a process,
the imaging device (Okiyama FIG. 3, imaging device 57) being inserted into an interior of a main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) of an assistance tool (Okiyama FIG. 1, intraoral imaging aid 3) from an opening (Okiyama FIG. 3, opening 32A) of the assistance tool, the assistance tool being inserted into an oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 1, oral cavity 71 for imaging an inner side of the oral cavity, and the assistance tool including:
the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) in a cylindrical shape, , the main body having a distal end portion and a proximal end portion outwardly opposite to each other in an insertion direction (Okiyama FIG. 3, ends 32 and 33 located on opposites sides of main body 31), the assistance tool being configured to be inserted into the oral cavity along the insertion direction (Okiyama FIG. 1, showing intraoral imaging aid 3 inserted into oral cavity 71)
the opening (Okiyama FIG. 3, opening 32A) formed at the proximal end portion of the main body (Okiyama FIG. 3, proximal end 32).
The first embodiment depicted in Okiyama FIG. 2, does not explicitly show a cover formed at the distal end portion of the main body.
However, a second embodiment of Okiyama teaches a cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, window 33A; Okiyama paragraph [0061], “window 33A may be covered with a transparent member”) formed at the distal end portion of the main body.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Okiyama’s covered window with the assistance tool disclosed in the first embodiment of Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an assistance tool that prevents patient fluids from reaching an imaging device (see imaging device 57 in Okiyama FIG. 3).
The first embodiment of Okiyama further discloses:
a cover collar (Okiyama FIG. 2, regulator 35) formed to connect the main body (Okiyama FIG. 2, cylindrical main body 31) and the cover in a manner that the cover (Okiyama FIG. 2, covered window 33A) is disposed at the distal end portion of the main body.
the method comprising executing on the at least one processor the steps of:
capturing a subject image by the imaging device in response to an operation input by a user, the subject image including the inner side of the oral cavity (Okiyama FIG. 1, oral cavity 71; Okiyama FIG. 15, step S1 “Has recording button been pressed”) and step S2 “Start Recording”; see also Okiyama paragraphs [0125] – [0126]”); and
wherein the cover collar is inwardly protruded from an inner surface of the main body toward an inner side of the main body in a cross-sectional view (Okiyama FIG. 2, showing regulator 35 protruding inwardly from the connecting surface 36 of main body 31 and towards an opposite side of an interior of the main body 31.
Although Okiyama FIG. 3 shows imaging device 57 capturing an image of regulator 35 when the imaging device 57 is inserted into the main body 31, Okiyama does not explicitly teach determining whether at least part of the cover collar is included in the subject image; and outputting information indicating that the imaging device is not inserted into the assistance tool in a case in which the processor determines that the at least part of a cover collar is not included in the subject image.
Shiratani is analogous art in the field of image processing that teaches determining whether at least part of the cover collar is included in the subject image; and outputting information indicating that the imaging device is not inserted into the assistance tool in a case in which the processor determines that the at least part of a cover collar is not included in the subject image (Shiratani FIG. 1, image recognition device 4; Shiratani paragraph [0022], “The image recognition device 4, which includes a convolutional neural network, acquires image data…and learns and recognizes the images.”. Examiner interprets Shiratani paragraph [0022] as teaching the well-known process of identifying images using a convolutional neural network (CNN) to recognize a structure within an image. Thus, Shiratani teaches the process of recognizing what features are or are not found in an image, such as Okiyama’s regulator 35 (cover collar).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Shiratani’s image recognition process with the imaging device taught by Okiyama. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an imaging device that can quickly and accurately identify objects and an environment shown in an image, in order to operate the imaging device in accordance with the identified environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed June 23, 2026, with respect to the objection to the figures have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to Claim 12. That is, the feature of a computer controlling the insertion of an imaging device is no longer claimed in the claims. The objection to the figures has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed June 23, 2026, with respect to rejections of Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to Claim 12. That is, the feature of a computer controlling the insertion of an imaging device is no longer claimed in the claims. The rejections of Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-14, filed June 23, 2026, with respect to rejections of Claim 1, 10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, on page 12 Applicant asserts that the regulator 35 shown in Okiyama FIG. 3 prevents imaging device 57 from passing through the distal end 33 of main body 31, rather than permitting the imaging device 57 to pass through the distal end 33 of the main body 31. Examiner is unable to find this feature in the amended claims, and thus the argument is moot.
On pages 12-13, Applicant asserts Okiyama fails to disclose wherein the cover collar is inwardly protruded from an inner surface of the main body toward an inner side of the main body in a cross-sectional view. Examiner respectfully disagrees, since Okiyama FIG. 2 shows regulator 35 protruding inwardly from the connecting surface 36 of main body 31 and towards an opposite side of an interior of the main body 31.
On pages 13-14, Applicant asserts that it would be improper hindsight reasoning to include Okiyama’s regulator 35 (cover collar) with the main body 31, both of which are a same embodiment and are both depicted in Okiyama FIG. 2. As such, there is no issue of hindsight reasoning to combine features from different inventions under 35 U.S.C. 103, making MPEP 2141.01(III) irrelevant.
As such, the rejections of Claims 1-7 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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.
Regarding dependent Claim 8, no combination of the identified prior art teaches or suggests wherein the positioning mechanism is connected to the main body with a connecting piece formed to be deformable or cuttable by applying a load in a predetermined direction.
Okiyama (US PGPUB 2021/0059534 – “Okiyama”) teaches an external positioning mechanism (Okiyama FIG. 4, flange 34) for positioning the imaging device and the assistance tool in the case where the imaging device is inserted from the opening (Examiner interprets Okiyama’s flange 34 as positioning the imaging device while entering the intraoral imaging aid 3).
Truckai et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0084971 – “Truckai”) teaches an internal positioning mechanism for positioning the imaging device and the assistance tool in the case where the imaging device is inserted from the opening (Truckai FIG. 2, tapered interior of distal end 152 of end cap 150 on sheath 120, which guide distal end of endoscope 108 into distal end of end cap 150).
However, neither Okiyama nor Truckai teach or suggest connecting the positioning mechanism to the main body with a connecting piece formed to be deformable or cuttable by applying a load in a predetermined direction. Furthermore, doing so would destroy the integrity of Okiyama’s flange and/or Truckai’s tapered interior, making them unsatisfactory for use.
Finally, there is no reason or suggestion provided in the prior art to modify the above prior art to teach the limitations as claimed above, and the only reason to modify the references would be based on Applicant's disclosure, which is impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Dependent Claim 9 is deemed allowable for depending on Claim 8.
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 JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
08/17/26
Prosecution Insights