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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 14-25, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inglis et al. (US 20190133430 A1) (hereon referred to as Inglis).
Regarding claim 10, Inglis teaches a laryngoscope system (10) comprising:
a control unit (12) including a body portion (14 and 16), the body portion comprising a first body portion (14);
a blade unit (28) extending from a proximal end to a distal end, the blade unit including a distal part extending to the distal end and comprising a first surface, the distal part being configured for insertion into a patient's oral cavity with the first surface facing the patient's tongue (see labelled diagram of Fig. 1 below); and
an image sensor (34) configured to generate image data indicative of a view in a viewing direction from the distal part of the blade unit (see Para. [0036]);
PNG
media_image1.png
483
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first body portion (14) of the control unit (12) is couplable to the blade unit (28, via 36), and wherein the control unit (12) is configured to detect a trigger event (see Para. [0036]) and, responsive to detection of the trigger event (see Para. [0036]), to start a timer function and to present on a display (50), concurrently, a live representation of the image data and a value of the timer function (see Para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 14, Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system of claim 10, wherein the trigger event comprises a coupling of the control unit and the blade unit (see Para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system of claim 10, wherein the trigger event comprises a user input (see Para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 16, Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system of claim 15, the laryngoscope system further comprising the display, wherein the display comprises a touch-screen, and wherein the user input comprises a user touch of the touch-screen (see Para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 17, Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system of claim 16, wherein control unit comprises the display (50).
Regarding claim 18, Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system of claim 16, wherein the display (50) is a separate component of the laryngoscope system (see Para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 19, Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system of claim 10, wherein the trigger event comprises an insertion of the distal part of the blade unit into the patient's oral cavity (see Para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 20, Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system of claim 10, wherein the control unit (12) comprises a control unit display element (108), and wherein the control unit display element includes the display (50).
Regarding claim 21, Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system of claim 20, wherein the control unit (12) further comprises a second body portion (110) hingedly connected (see Fig. 3) to the control unit display element (108).
Regarding claim 22, Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system of claim 21, wherein the second body portion (110) comprises the display (50).
Regarding claim 23, Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system of claim 22, wherein the display (50) comprises a touch-screen, and wherein trigger event comprises a user touch of the touch-screen (see Para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 24, Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system of claim 10, wherein the blade unit (28) comprises a blade coupling (36) portion configured to couple the blade unit (28) to the control unit (12).
Regarding claim 25, Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system of claim 10, wherein the laryngoscope system is configured to detect, by image analysis of the image data, insertion of the distal part of the blade unit into the patient's oral cavity (see Para. [0036]), and wherein the trigger event corresponds to insertion of the distal part of the blade unit into a patient's oral cavity (see Para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 26, Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system of claim 10, wherein the blade unit (28) comprises the image sensor (34), and wherein the image sensor is positioned in the distal part of the blade unit (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 27, Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system of claim 10, wherein the control unit (12) comprises a camera unit (26) including the image sensor (34, see Para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 28, Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system of claim 10, wherein the laryngoscope system (10) further comprises a monitor device (50) communicatively connectable to the control unit (12, see Para. [0039]).
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 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inglis as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Carrey et al. (WO 2008019367) (hereon referred to as Carrey).
Inglis teaches the laryngoscope system as outlined in the rejection of claim 10 above, however fails to teach wherein the timer function comprises a countdown timer configured to count down from a pre-defined amount of time, wherein the control unit is configured to present the value of the timer function with a first visual characteristic if the value is greater than a low-threshold time range and with a second visual characteristic if the value is within the low-threshold time range, the second visual characteristic being different than the first visual characteristic (claim 11), wherein the timer function comprises a countdown timer configured to count down from a predetermined value (claim 12).
Carrey teaches a stylet system (see Fig. 1), wherein the system comprises a timer (304) configured to count down from 30 seconds (see Para. [0044]), as this is an optimum timeframe for intubation (see Para. [0045]). The timer furthermore counts down on the display, such that the visual characteristic changes based on where in the threshold time range the timer is (see Para. [0045]). Furthermore, the countdown timer is counting down from a predetermined value, as a 30 second timer is envisioned (see Para. [0044]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the timer of Inglis to be a countdown timer as taught by Carrey, as this would enable the practitioner to modify their intubation process and indicators such that the ideal timeframe for the procedure is taken into account (see Para. [0045]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY J LANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at 571-272-4719. 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.
/H.J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773