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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
Figures 4 and 5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. Figures 4 and 5 are “comparative examples” (see [0065]-[0066] of the specification) of what appears to be prior art in a case where holding portion 7000 (alleged inventive structure) is not included (see paragraph [0064] of the specification). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 5, recitation that the device “further comprises” a first electric motor unit that rotates the endoscope around the first optical axis is ambiguous since it appears that the previously claimed “first rotation unit” (claim 1) does this, making it unclear whether or not Applicant is reciting an additional rotation unit. Since it appears from the disclosure that the “first electric motor unit” should be further limiting the previously claimed “first rotation unit”, this is how the claim will be interpreted for examination purposes.
As to claim 10, recitation that the device “further comprises” a second electric motor unit that rotates the imaging device is ambiguous since it appears that the previously claimed “second rotation unit” (claim 1) does this, making it unclear whether or not Applicant is reciting an additional rotation unit. Since it appears from the disclosure that the “second electric motor unit” should be further limiting the previously claimed “second rotation unit”, this is how the claim will be interpreted for examination purposes.
Dependent claims inherit those defects.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first rotation unit” and “second rotation unit” in at least claim 1;
“first attachment portion” in at least claim 2;
“first rotation angle acquisition unit” in at least claim 4;
“second attachment portion” in at least claim 8;
“mark generation unit” in at least claim 16;
“support arm device” in at least claim 20
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. (EP 3 705 018, hereinafter “Kuroda”) in view of Oginski et al. (US 2015/0105620, hereinafter “Oginski”).
As to claim 1 and 20, Kuroda et al. discloses an endoscope holding device and control method comprising:
a housing (holding unit 7000, Fig.22) and is disposed in a robot arm (disposed in tip portion of arm unit 1422at 7300, Fig.22, [0161]);
a first rotation unit (rotation drive unit 7500, Fig.22, [0163]) that is disposed in the housing (Fig.22) and rotates an endoscope with respect to an optical axis of the housing (rotates endoscope 100, [0163]), the endoscope being fixed such that light emitted from the endoscope enters the housing (implicit: light from endoscope must traverse holding unit 7000 to be received at camera head 5005, Fig.22); and
a second rotation unit (rotation drive unit 7200, Fig.22, [0162]) that is disposed in the housing (Fig.22) and rotates an imaging device with respect to the optical axis of the housing (rotates camera head, [0162]) according to rotation angle of the endoscope ([0166]-[0167]), the imaging device being fixed such that light emitted from the housing enters the imaging device (implicit: light from endoscope must traverse holding unit 7000 to be received at camera head 5005, Fig.22).
Kuroda fails to disclose that the housing accommodates a relay optical system along the optical axis of the housing. However, one of ordinary skill would recognize that, given the fact a camera head (imaging device) is normally designed to optically receive an image directly from an intimately connected endoscope, placement of a structure between the camera head and endoscope (such as holding unit 7000) would require a relay optical system to faithfully transfer the image output from the endoscope to the input of the camera head over the distance of the structure (Oginski: [0024]). Oginski teaches, in a similar holding unit that is placed between and allows relative rotation of the endoscope and camera head (note holder arm 3, rotational device 6, Figs.2,3), to provide a relay optical system (63, Fig.3, [0067]) through the housing of the holding unit that is aligned with the optical axis of both the endoscope and camera head (Fig.3) in order to accurately transfer the image formed at the output end of the endoscope to the input end of the camera head ([0024],[0068],[0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a relay optical system in the holding unit of Kuroda in order to improve optical transfer of images from the endoscope to the camera head, as taught by Oginski.
As to claim 2, further comprising a first attachment portion (7400, Fig.22) that detachably attaches the endoscope to the first rotation unit ([0163]).
As to claim 3, wherein the first attachment portion fixes the endoscope such that a first optical axis at a subsequent stage of the endoscope coincides with a second optical axis of the relay optical system (as modified, the optical axis of the endoscope will necessarily coincide with the optical axis of the rely optical system, as shown by axis L in Fig.3 of Oginski).
As to claim 4, further comprising a first rotation angle acquisition unit (rotation unit encoder 7520, Fig.23) that acquires a rotation angle of the endoscope rotating around the first optical axis ([0166]).
As to claim 5, wherein the first rotation unit comprises a first electric motor unit that rotates the endoscope around the first optical axis (motor, [0163]).
As to claim 6, wherein the second optical axis and a third optical axis of an optical system of the imaging device are fixed to coincide with each other (as modified, the optical axis of the imaging device will necessarily coincide with the optical axis of the rely optical system, as shown by axis L in Fig.3 of Oginski).
As to claim 7, wherein the second rotation unit rotates the imaging device around the third optical axis on a basis of information of a rotation angle of the endoscope acquired by the first rotation angle acquisition unit ([0165]).
As to claim 8, further comprising a second attachment portion (7100,Fig.22) that detachably attaches the imaging device to the second rotation unit ([0162]).
As to claim 9, wherein the relay optical system and an optical system of the imaging device are integrally formed (as modified for the holding device to include a relay optical system, all components are integrally formed as a unit when attached together, as shown in Fig.22 of Kuroda).
As to claim 10, wherein the second rotation unit comprises a second electric motor unit that rotates the imaging device around the third optical axis (motor, [0162]).
As to claim 11, wherein the second electric motor unit rotates the imaging device around the third optical axis on a basis of information of a rotation angle of the endoscope ([0166]-[0167]).
As to claim 12, wherein the endoscope is an oblique-viewing endoscope (endoscope include an angled field of view, Fig.5, which encompasses both forward and oblique field of views).
As to claim 13, wherein the second electric motor unit rotates the imaging device with respect to the third optical axis on a basis of information of a rotation angle of the endoscope such that the imaging device maintains a predetermined rotation angle with respect to the third optical axis ([0166]-[0167]).
As to claim 14, wherein the endoscope is a forward-viewing endoscope (endoscope include an angled field of view, Fig.5, which encompasses both forward and oblique field of views).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. (EP 3 705 018, hereinafter “Kuroda”) in view of Oginski et al. (US 2015/0105620, hereinafter “Oginski”), as set forth above with respect to claim 4, and further in view of Hoeg et al. (US 2006/0084840, hereinafter “Hoeg”).
As to claim 16, Kuroda in view of Oginski disclose the endoscope holding device according to claim 4 (see discussion of claims 1-4 above), but fails to disclose a mark generation unit that generates a mark indicating at least one of a predetermined direction with respect to a third optical axis of the imaging device and a rotation direction by using information of a rotation angle of the endoscope acquired by the first rotation angle acquisition unit; and a control unit that causes a display device to display an image captured by the imaging device with the mark superimposed on the image. However, Hoeg teaches, in an endoscope system where endoscope rotation and camera rotation are tracked (e.g. Fig.3, rotations theta and beta), to provide a mark generation unit (microprocessor, [0018]) that generates a mark (either mark 48 or mark 46, Fig.4) indicating at least one of a predetermined direction with respect to a third optical axis of the imaging device (mark 48 indicates gravitation vertical with respect to the imaging device in the camera, [0018],[0036]) and a rotation direction (mark 46 indicates how much image orientation is off from vertical, [0018],[0037]) by using information of a rotation angle of the endoscope acquired by the first rotation angle acquisition unit (sensors measure rotations, [0028]); and a control unit (microprocessor and display, [0018],[0037]) that causes a display device to display an image captured by the imaging device with the mark superimposed on the image ([0037], Fig.4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the mark generation unit/control unit as taught by Hoeg to the system of Kuroda/Oginski in order to provide the beneficial predictable result of keeping the user/viewer informed of the relative rotations of the endoscope and camera with respect to a known reference (i.e. gravitational vertical) so a not allow the user/view to get disoriented upon rotation of the image.
As to claim 17, wherein an acceleration sensor is disposed in the imaging device (Oginski: acceleration sensors, 24,26,28, [0028]), and the mark generation unit generates a mark indicating at least one of a predetermined direction with respect to the third optical axis and a rotation direction by also using information of the acceleration sensor (Oginski: [0037]).
As to claim 18, wherein the mark generation unit generates a mark indicating information of the rotation direction and an angle to be rotated (relative angle between marks 48,46, Fig.4, indicated amount and direction of camera rotation needed, [0018]).
As to claim 19, further comprising a support arm device that supports the robot arm including the endoscope holding device at an end portion (Kuroda, arm device 1422b,1422c,1422d,1422e supports robotic arm 1422, Fig.22).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See references cited on PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P LEUBECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4769. The examiner can normally be reached Generally, M-F, 5:30-2:00.
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 T 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.
/JOHN P LEUBECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795